Duties of masters and employers

303. Masters are bound toward their servants: a. to treat them kindly; b. to direct them; c. to pay them a just price.

1. To treat them kindly, that is, to address them humanely, to provide sufficient food, not to burden them with excessive labors, to care suitably for the sick: "If thou hast a faithful servant, let him be to thee as thy own soul; treat him as a brother."¹

Hence masters sin against charity if they offend servants by addressing them with harsh and contumelious words, if they burden them with excessive labor, if they do not devote due bodily care to the sick. But they are not bound to the expenses to be made in their cure, namely for physicians and remedies.

2. To direct them and, if there is need, to correct them, that is, to devote due spiritual care to them; for the master is head of the whole family, to which servants also pertain. But it belongs to the head to direct subjects: "But if anyone does not have care of his own, and especially of those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."²

Therefore they are bound: a. to grant servants time so that they can fulfill religious obligations, for example, hear Mass, attend a sermon, frequent the sacraments; indeed they ought to take care that servants do this. b. They are bound to warn and correct them, especially if they sin by blasphemies or foul speech and give scandal; to prohibit illicit familiarities to them; to impede the occasion of sinning. c. They are bound to dismiss impious servants who are a scandal to others and, when warned, do not amend themselves, where they can find other suitable servants; a fortiori they are bound not to hire servants of this sort. d. But they must especially beware lest by bad example, scandal, or solicitation they themselves induce servants to sin. Nevertheless, the sin of scandal or induction does not put on a specific malice from the relation of master to servant unless the master has assumed special spiritual care in place of parents.

3. To pay a just price, and that from justice; for by the contract entered they obligated themselves to this. Defrauding due wages is numbered among the sins crying to heaven.³

a. Hence they sin against justice if without just cause they subtract anything from the promised wage or for a long time defer payment with damage to the servants. If a servant who has been hired at least for a year becomes sick for a brief time, for example, for a week, the whole stipend is due to him; but if he is sick for a notable time, the whole stipend is not due to him, for he cannot demand pay except for service furnished.⁴

b. They also sin if they demand labors to which servants are not bound by force of the contract and do not increase the stipend for them; if they dismiss servants before the constituted time without just cause and do not keep them indemnified. Therefore if a servant unjustly dismissed cannot find another service, the master must pay him the whole wage. If indeed he finds another, but not equally good or not immediately, the master must supply the defect. But if he immediately finds another equally good, the master is bound to nothing in conscience before the sentence of a judge, because he has inflicted no damage upon him.

c. If a servant departs before the constituted time from the fault of the master, because, for example, he is treated harshly by him, he does not indeed have the right to the whole wage, but he has the right that damages be repaired to him; and sometimes the whole salary does not suffice to repair them.

¹ Ecclus. 33:31. Cf. Eph. 6:9.

² 1 Tim. 5:8.

³ Deut. 24:14 s.; Jas. 5:4.

⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 346.

The duties are not all on one side and the rights on the other in the relation of master and servant. Each has his rights and each his duties, and their good and the good of the community largely depends on both sides faithfully and loyally fulfilling their mutual obligations.

(a) A master must treat his servant not as a mere instrument of production, but as a fellow-Christian: “‘ Religion teaches the wealthy owner and the employer that their work-people are not to be accounted their bondsmen; that in every man they must respect his dignity and worth as a man and as a Christian; that labour is not a thing to be ashamed of if we lend ear to right reason and to Christian philosophy, but is an honourable calling, enabling a man to sustain his life in a way upright and creditable; and that it is shameful and inhuman to treat men like chattels to make money by, or to look upon them merely as so much muscle or physical power.

(b) “ Again, therefore, the Church teaches that, as religion and things spiritual and mental are among the working man’s main concerns, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions, and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family or to squander his earnings.”¹ The general obligation of fraternal correction will more frequently impose a duty on the master of admonishing and correcting a domestic servant than an ordinary workman of his.

(c) “‘ Furthermore, the employer must never tax his workpeople beyond their strength or employ them in work unsuited to their age or sex.”² According to English common law, the contract between employer and employed involves on the part of the former the duty of taking reasonable care to provide appliances and to maintain them in a proper condition, and so to carry on his operations as not to subject those employed by him to unnecessary risk. This common law liability has been further increased and defined by the Employers’ Liability Acts and Workmen’s Compensation Acts, which, however, will as a rule only affect the conscience after the sentence of a competent authority, except in so far as there was grave culpable negligence on the part of the employer.

(d) The employer’s “ great and principal duty is to give everyone a fair wage. Doubtless before deciding whether wages are adequate, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labour should be mindful of this, that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, are condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud anyone of wages that are his due is a crime which cries to the avenging anger of heaven. Behold, the hire of the labourers . . . which by fraud hath been kept back by you, crieth aloud; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.³ “ Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the labouring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?”⁴ Sums must not be deducted from a servant’s wages on account of temporary illness, though by English law a master is not bound to provide medical aid or medicines for a sick servant, though he is for an apprentice. If he sends for medical assistance for a servant whilst under his roof, he is liable. In the same encyclical of Leo XIII a general rule is laid down for deciding what a fair wage is: ‘‘ Let it, then, be 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.”

The workman, then, has a right to a living wage, and the employer who grows rich by sweating his work-people commits a sin against justice and is bound to make restitution of his ill-gotten wealth. If, however, the employer gives as good wages as he can afford, or as good as the labour is worth, he will be excused from any sin against justice; occasionally in bad times he may be bound out of charity to give employment without profit to himself or even at a personal loss.

¹ Leo XIII, l.c.

² ibid.

³ Jas. v 4; Can. 1524.

⁴ Leo XIII, l.c.

I. Notion. Labor here is understood as the use of powers which by its nature is not ordered to delight, as games or sport, as it is called, are. It is distinguished as spiritual and bodily.

II. The right of laboring. It is clear that to each person belongs the right of using his powers, insofar as by that use the right of another is not harmed. But it is asked to what extent one who otherwise cannot provide for himself and his own has a broad right that an occasion of laboring be procured for him. Now those who can conveniently furnish it are bound to furnish an occasion of laboring to those who lack another means of support. Likewise the State, insofar as there is need, should provide for this cause.

What is to be said about the rationalization of labor, as it is called?

Response 1. The rationalization of labor consists in this, that with the least possible powers the greatest number and best effects are produced and brought to buyers. The consequence will be that more workers become superfluous and are dismissed.

Response 2. This way of acting is not illicit, because no one is bound to neglect his own advantage in order to procure advantage for another. Make exception if the State, insofar as it is necessary for the common good and can practically be done, restricts liberty.

III. Obligation of laboring. Each person is bound to labor: 1° if otherwise he cannot provide for himself and his own; 2° if idleness would be a proximate and free occasion of sins. Labor is also necessary for the common good; but if the intended end, with attention paid to the common character of men, will be obtained certainly enough - as has place in the case - a necessity of this kind does not oblige individual persons (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 187, a. 3).

Objection. The Apostle warns: "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat."¹

Response. The Apostle can best be understood of those who, with labor neglected, cannot provide for themselves and their own.²

¹ 2 Thess. 3:10.

² Encyclical Quadragesimo anno, May 15, 1931 (A.A.S. 1931, p. 197).

159. Masters and patrons are bound per se not to burden workers with longer and graver labors, nor to expose them to dangerous labors, unless the reason of the common good requires otherwise and due precautions are employed.

They are bound to treat workers well, with urbanity and Christian charity. Besides, they must leave them liberty of fulfilling the offices of religion, and therefore by no means ought to compel them to work on Sundays and feast days, unless grave necessity urges; and then at least they must grant them time, as far as can be done, for hearing Mass.

They are bound to pay a just wage, according to the pacts entered, and at its time. They are bound not unjustly to impede them from laboring, and from being able suitably to sustain themselves by their labor. Likewise, from charity they ought to succor them when they are placed in necessity, before other outside poor persons, since the workers are more joined to them and are of no small utility; for the profit which they receive is owed in great part to the labor of workers.

Masters and patrons, as superiors, are bound to avert dangers of body and soul from workshops in which many workers labor. Of body, by providing for their health with suitable safeguards; of soul, by prohibiting blasphemies, shameful conversations, perverse journals, obscene images, and that men and women, especially the younger, not be together promiscuously.

What are the obligations of masters? - Masters are bound toward their servants: 1. To treat them kindly, that is, by addressing and commanding them decently and humanely, by furnishing good and sufficient food, by not burdening them with too many works, by not exposing them to harmful and dangerous works without due precautions, and by conveniently caring for the sick. And generally they are bound to fulfill the offices of charity toward their own servants more than toward others, because servants labor for them, and as it were live for them, and are of the family. This is clear from natural law, and from Sacred Scripture. Ecclus. 33:31: If you have a faithful servant, let him be to you as your soul; treat him as a brother. Eph. 6:9: And you, masters, do the same things to them (servants), forbearing threats; knowing that both their Lord and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him. C. He. 331, 332.

2. To govern them conveniently, having due regard for the goods of religion and salvation, to instruct and correct them conveniently; for the master is head of the servant, just as of the whole family; but it belongs to the head to direct, where there is need. It seems also clear from the words of Paul, 1 Tim. 5:8: But if anyone does not have care for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. But the servant is reckoned among domestics. C. He. 332; Elbel n. 950.

3. To pay a just price; for the matter concerns an obligation of justice and natural equity; and defrauding such a wage is numbered among the sins crying to heaven. 1 Tim. 5:18; 1 Kings 30:13; L. 342; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 102, a. 1.

You will resolve: Masters can sin, and indeed even gravely: If they do not concede time to servants for learning the rudiments of the Christian faith, or do not send them to catechism and sermon; if they do not take care that at the due time they assist at Mass, confess, and communicate. If they hire or retain in the house servants addicted to illicit sects, irreligious, impious, blaspheming, speaking base things; if they do not warn and correct those sinning gravely, or do not dismiss those unwilling to promise amendment, unless perhaps they especially need their works and cannot find others. If they do not watch, as far as lies in them, that servants abstain from sins; if they permit an occasion of sinning to them; if they lead or entice them into sin by bad example or solicitations.

If they do not pay the promised or just stipend, or delay it too much; if they do not care for sick servants, and immediately expel them, or dismiss them before the fixed time without just cause. Catholic Epistle of Blessed James 5:4; C. B. 618; C. He. 331, 332; L. 342. For understanding the gravity of sin as to the aforesaid omitted warning, correction, and vigilance, and the scandal that followed, it is often necessary to open the condition of the master. For as to extraneous persons grave fault is often absent. Almost the same are the obligations of other masters toward workers who labor in their factories.

5. "In the Encyclical Rerum Novarum it is said: - Let it be, therefore, that the worker and the master freely consent to the same agreement, and namely to the manner of the wage; nevertheless there is always something from natural justice underlying it, and this greater and older than the free will of the parties making the pact, namely that the wage ought not be unequal to supporting a worker who is frugal indeed and well behaved.

Doubt I. By the words natural justice, is commutative justice understood, or rather natural equity?

To Doubt I. Speaking per se, commutative justice is understood.

Explanation. - Indeed, the work of the worker differs very much from merchandise, just as wage differs from price. For the work of the worker is a work proceeding from human freedom, therefore clothing itself with the ratio of merit and of right to a wage or reward. And therefore it is far nobler than merchandise and price, which are resolved by exchange alone. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, the work of the worker is considered as a certain merchandise, and reward or wage as a certain price.

Nor undeservedly; for although the work of the worker is something nobler than merchandise, nevertheless it retains the whole ratio of merchandise from that part by which this expresses order to price. Therefore the reasoning of St. Thomas, 1.2. q. 114. a. 1, is most right: "For that is called a wage which is recompensed to someone for the recompense of work or labor, as a certain price of it. Whence, just as to render a 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." An act, I say, of commutative justice. For just as buying and selling, so work and wage are for the common utility of the contracting parties, namely while one needs the thing or service of the other, and conversely. But what is for common utility ought not to be more a burden to one than to the other, and therefore the contract of justice between master and worker ought to be established according to the equality of the thing, which is the property of commutative justice. Cf. 2.2. q. 57. a. 1.

But if the criterion is sought by which that equality of the thing must be established between the manual work of the worker and the wage to be given by the master, we respond: That criterion in the Encyclical is said to be sought from the immediate end of the worker, which imposes on him the natural office or necessity of working, namely from food and clothing for sustaining life fittingly, and to which manual labor is first and principally ordered. 2.2. q. 187. a. 3. Therefore as often as the work is such that through it the worker satisfies his aforesaid natural office of attaining the immediate end of his labor, and the wage is unequal to attaining this end, namely fitting food and clothing, speaking per se and with the nature of things considered, there is an objective inequality between work and wage, and therefore an injury of commutative justice.

Nevertheless, two things generally must be considered in this matter. One is that, just as the price of saleable things is not punctually determined by the law of nature, but rather consists in a certain common estimation, so also it must generally be said concerning wage. Whence, the exigency from the ratio of the end remaining firm, namely of fitting food and clothing, a modest addition or diminution is made, or at least can be made, to the wage of the worker from common estimation, with justice preserved, just as in the price of merchandise a modest addition or diminution, from public estimation, does not seem to remove the equality of justice. 2.2. q. 77. a. 1. ad 1. The other is that in assigning the equality of justice between wage and manual work, attention is paid by common estimation not only to both the quality and the quantity of the work, but also to the time of its duration, likewise to the prices of things which must be bought by the worker for fitting food and clothing; which prices are not the same everywhere.

But if finally, without justice being injured toward the worker, according to what has been said, the master is much helped by his work, he can indeed, of his own accord and laudably, supererogate something to the worker, but this pertains to his honesty, without his being held from justice. Namely, in our matter the principles are valid which are given for just buying and selling. 2.2. q. 77. a. 1. in c. a.

Doubt II. Will a master sin who indeed pays a wage sufficient for the support of the worker, but unequal to feeding his family, whether this consists of a wife and numerous offspring, or whether it is not so numerous? If affirmatively, against what virtue?

To Doubt II. He will not sin against justice; nevertheless, he will sometimes be able to sin either against charity or against natural honesty.

Explanation. - From this very thing, that according to the things declared in the response to the first doubt, equality of wage and work is observed, the exigencies of commutative justice are fully satisfied. But the work is the personal work of the worker, and not of his family, nor is it referred to the family itself first and per se, but secondarily and by accident, insofar as the worker distributes the wage received with his own. Therefore just as the family, in the case, does not increase the work, so from justice it does not require that the wage owed to the work itself be increased.

Nevertheless he will be able to sin against charity, but not generally and per se, but by accident and in some cases. Whence in the response it was said: sometimes.

Against charity, not only in all those modes by which a man can sin concerning charity toward his neighbor, but also in a peculiar mode. For the work of the worker yields to the emolument of the master. Therefore as often as this master is driven in individual cases by the precept of charity to exercise the offices of charity, he is held also to observe the order of charity. This order indeed makes workers, exercising daily work for his utility, nearer to the master than the poor, or others, doing nothing for him. Wherefore a master able to exercise offices of charity ought to prefer his own workers, by bestowing on them from charity what justice by no means requires, so that the wage thus increased from charity may become less insufficient also for sustaining the family of the worker. But these things must be held generically and as if theoretically; for in practice one must not rashly judge whether a master sins or does not sin against charity.

Against honesty, whose proper thing is to repay, namely spontaneously and not from justice. We do not wish here to understand honesty as inducing gratitude from a benefit received: for the work of the worker is not a benefit, because it is compensated by a wage according to the equality of the thing; but because the master receives from the work of the worker a great benefit and emolument, and therefore from a certain natural honesty he is in some way held to recompense by supererogation, as in the response to the 1st, § But if finally, with nevertheless no right existing in the worker to that supererogation, as is plain.

Doubt III. Whether and by what reason do masters sin who, using no force or fraud, give less salary than the work furnished deserves and than suffices for honest support, because many workers offer themselves who are content with that small stipend, or freely consent to it?

To Doubt III. Speaking per se, they sin against commutative justice.

Explanation. - It has been said that, although the work of the worker is not properly merchandise, nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, it can be compared to merchandise, because in order to equality of wage it has the whole of what merchandise has in relation to price, and something further also. Whence the argument is rightly instituted from the lesser to the greater. But in buying it is not lawful, speaking per se, to buy a thing for less than it is worth from common estimation, with regard had to the condition of times and places. Therefore a fortiori it is not lawful, but is against justice, to give less salary than the work furnished deserves, that is, than suffices for honest support. On this doubt let the Encyclical be seen, p. 33 and 38.

I said speaking per se: by accident particular cases can be given in which masters can lawfully hire workers content with an inadequate wage. Suppose if the master would draw either no benefit, or a benefit altogether insufficient for suitably sustaining his own life, if he gave an adequate wage; indeed, even if he would suffer damage from it. For in this case and in similar ones, although at first sight the question is of justice, nevertheless in reality it is more a question of charity, by which the master provides both for himself and for others. Cf. Explanation to Doubt I, § Duo tamen." S. O. apud Monitore Ecclesiastico, Conversano, v. 7. p. 2. p. 155, 156.

551. The duties of justice of owners were defined by the same Leo XIII:

"These things, however, pertain to the wealthy and to owners: 1. that workers are not to be held in the place of slaves; that it is equitable to revere in them the dignity of the person, everywhere ennobled by that which is called the Christian character... It is truly shameful and inhuman to abuse men as things for gain, and not to value them more than according as they are strong in sinews and powers. 2. Similarly it is prescribed that regard ought to be had for religion and the goods of the soul in proletarians. Wherefore it is the part of owners to bring it about that the worker be free for piety in a suitable space of time; not to expose the man to the allurements of corruptions and enticements of sinning; nor in any way to draw him away from domestic care and the study of thrift. 3. Likewise, not to impose more work than their powers can bear, nor that kind which is at variance with age and sex. 4. But among the greatest duties of owners this stands forth, to furnish to each one what is just... But to defraud anyone of the wage due is a great crime, which calls down avenging wrath from heaven. Behold, the wages of the laborers... which have been defrauded by you, cry out: and their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth (Jas. V, 4). 5. Finally, the wealthy must religiously take care that they harm the profits of proletarians in nothing, neither by force, nor by deceit, nor by usurious arts; and this all the more because they are not sufficiently fortified against injuries and impotence, and their goods, the smaller they are, the more sacred they must be held." Among these harms also must be considered unjust dismissal from work.

Therefore owners must:

1. Revere in workers the human, religious, Christian dignity of the person, and not hold them as slaves, or as mere instruments of production, in which there is no other value than what they produce.⁷

⁷ Ibid., a. 15.

Hence a) workers must furnish obedience to owners only in those things which regard the agreed work, and indeed during the time of furnishing labor; b) when that time has passed, they remain free, nor do owners have the right of commanding anything against their conscience or liberty; c) indeed, in commanding those things which regard the work, they must abstain from those which are repugnant to human dignity or are altogether less fitting.

2. Have regard for the goods of the soul in proletarians, and concede to them a suitable space of time so that they may be able to live as men, that is, so that they may be able to attend to religious and moral and familial duties.

Care must be taken a) that rest be conceded on Sundays and feast days, unless true necessity stands in the way; and that to those workers who more often must labor on Sunday from necessity there be granted at least the time necessary for fulfilling religious duties;⁸

⁸ Hence the Belgian law of 17 July 1905 concerning rest on Sunday.

b) that workers not be exposed to the allurements of corruptions and enticements of sinning; especially that occasions of sinning not arise from the promiscuity of the sexes, that scandal not be given by impious or lustful conversations, that superiors not abuse authority to extort something repugnant to good morals;

c) that the time necessary be conceded to men, and especially to women, for rightly arranging domestic life and well educating offspring.

3. Have regard for the powers of the body in imposing work, and for difference of age or sex; and, as much as possible, turn away from workers damages and dangers to life, integrity, and health.

Hence a) in dangerous works or industries, precautions must be applied by which danger is removed for life, security, or health;⁹

⁹ Cf. Belgian law of 20 July 1899.

b) if it is impossible to avert the danger totally, the wage must be increased according to the probability of the danger, or the damage inflicted must be equitably compensated;

c) the owner must take upon himself the dangers arising from the labor itself, and insure the workers against them, except in the case of graver fault in the workers¹⁰ or of an evil intention;

¹⁰ Cf. Belgian law of 24 Dec. 1903. This law extends natural right, so that the owner is held even in the case of graver fault on the part of the worker, unless however the latter acted with the intention of provoking harm; but that disposition of the law obliges in conscience only after the sentence of the judge.

d) daily labor must not be prolonged excessively, lest the worker's powers be exhausted, "the mind grow dull by excessive labor, and at the same time the body succumb to weariness,... but intervals of rest ought to exist";¹¹

¹¹ Hence the law concerning labor for 8 hours, 14 June 1921.

e) there should not be imposed upon women labor which exceeds their powers or is unbecoming to their sex, as are many things to be performed in workshops, while they are rather born for domestic works;¹²

¹² Cf. Belgian law of 13 Dec. 1889 and 10 Aug. 1911, 14 June 1921.

f) nor should works be committed to children for the performance of which they are not yet equal: thus especially in the weaker age, while lighter things rather should be assigned to those more grown.

4. Pay a just wage, and indeed at the established time.¹³

¹³ Cf. Belgian law of 10 March 1900, a. 11 and following.

This is the chief duty, concerning which one must speak expressly.

5. Finally, beware of every unjust harm, especially of unjust dismissal from work.

The owner cannot cast out workers before the prefixed time without a grave reason; but if the time is indefinite, he must warn them at the due time. Otherwise he is held concerning damages.¹⁴

¹⁴ Ibid., a. 16 and following.