Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/230

194 194 HARVARD LAW REVIEW the employer; a n;iaxiinum rate would be in effect a restraint upon an employee. The act gives power to prescribe a minimmn rate, and the object of that power would be defeated if a man who thinks that his services are worth more than the minimum rate were not free to hold out for a higher rate. Some employers pay more than the minimum for the avowed purpose of attracting the best men. Incidentally it may be remarked that the position as now settled here is very far from justifying the fears of those who look on provisions for minimum rates as tending to the estabhsh- ment of a "servile state." Mr. Belloc's dogma ^ that "the prin- ciple of a minimum wage involves as its converse the principle of compulsory labour," is not confirmed by such experience as I have had. The statement has often been made that the minimum rate tends to become the maximum rate. I have not foimd it so. It is quite true that far more employees get the minimum rate pre- scribed than got it before the rate was fixed, for, before that time they usually got varying rates, mostly below the minimum. I have not found unions objecting to members taking extra pay for extra usefulness; for instance, in building operations an expert scaffolder often claims, and gets without objection, a higher rate than the flat minimmn prescribed; and leading hands in a labouring process often get higher rates than their mates; ^ but unions object to extra rates for extra servility, for disloyalty to one's comrades. Offensive Jobs, Etc. Connected with this doctrine are the propositions that the Court does not attempt to discriminate in minimmn rates on the ground of comparative laboriousness, and that the Court will not prescribe an extra minimum to compensate for unnecessary risks to the Ufe or health of the employee, or for unnecessary dirt.^ For instance, members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers failed to get an increase of rate under the name of "dirt money" when handling dirty work. That is to say, the Court refused to increase the minimum rate prescribed.^ So, too, in artificial manure works, • "The Servile State," 172. ' Broken Hill, 10 Com. Arb. 200, 201 (1916). ' Broken Hill, 10 Com. Arb. 155 (19 16).
 * Propositions 12 and 19 of the previous article.