XXVIII.STEALING SERVANTS.
INThe Christian Uniona while ago, “Laicus” gives the history of a transaction between two neighbors, in which he thinks the indignation manifested by one of the parties was uncalled for, and her objection to the proceeding of the other “but a relic of the old-time slave system.” The case given was in this wise.
Mrs. Potiphar, it seems, “picks up a little girl in New York, and goes through all the trouble, discomfort, and anxiety of teaching her, until she becomes, at last, a very useful and efficient servant.” Those who have undertaken the training of young girls, not their own, will agree that Mrs. Potiphar’s task was not an enviable one, and that the girl owed her a debt of gratitude, which faithful, willing service alone could pay. As the child improved under this training, wages were given, until after five years’ education she received ten dollars a month. Mrs. Potiphar, appreciating the good qualities the girl had developed, failed not to give her ample praise; said she was “worth her weight in gold,” an expression very common, yet not usually taken literally; but she did not increase her wages. It may have been that she gave all that the work demanded of her was worth, or all that she could afford to give; it matters not which; it is no evidence, however, that she wished to defraud the girl of her just dues; it argues no injustice on Mrs. Potiphar’s part. But good friends, kind neighbors, behind her back, said it was a shame to pay Sophia so little; while to the lady’s face, however, they gave smiles and congratulations “upon her good luck.” Ah, what a pity that gossiping, meddling, and backbiting should befound in this beautiful world of ours. How much trouble and mischief these vices have caused! Much of the discomfort and disturbance in our households springs from this evil spirit, making servants fickle and unfaithful, and their mistresses’ life a burden. And it is all so needless! There is little fear, even when not tampered with, that girls will remain long on low wages, unless the privileges and kind care bestowed upon them are of more value than larger pay, and they have the good sense so to understand it. Every girl has a perfect right to seek the highest remuneration, and so that she gives her present employer reasonable notice, to enable her to secure other assistance, or to offer her larger wages, however great the disappointment to the lady may be, the girl has acted honorably and is worthy of no censure. But in the case cited by “Laicus,” Mrs. Chessleburg’s course is so repugnant, so foreign to all our ideas of honor, that we should hope there was some mistake in print, did we not know such acts are of daily occurrence.
Mrs. Potiphar has an excellent waiting-maid, just what Mrs. Chessleburg wants. Mrs. Chessleburg is much exercised in her mind because Mrs. Potiphar gives the poor girl such low wages.
“She is well worth fourteen dollars a month to me, if she is worth a penny.” Four dollars extra would be quite an addition to Sophia’s income. To be sure it would. So her nurse-girl goes confidentially (privatelywe presume that means) and tells Sophia that Mrs. Chessleburg will give her fourteen dollars a month if she will leave the lady, who, five years ago, “picked her up in New York,” and has taught her, during these years, to be such a desirable servant. The girl goes, of course. Mrs. Potiphar thinks it mean “to steal her girl away in that style.”So do we.Is it strange that we think Mrs. Chessleburg’s desire to right the girl’s supposed wrongs had its origin less in real benevolence than in theselfish anxiety to secure a valuable servant for herself? We certainly must, notwithstanding “Laicus’s” perplexity, join with the ladies in thinking Mrs. Chessleburg’s proceeding highly objectionable, and are confident employees as well as employers will agree in this matter.
We read the article in question to the superintendent of our farm, and said, “How does this strike you? How shall we answer this question? If the girl’s work was worth more than ten dollars, was it not right that she should have it?”
“Yes; but I shouldn’t think that was the right way for a lady to do? Why didn’t she go to the girl’s mistress, instead of sending her nurse-maid to the girl privately? I don’t think any lady would do such a thing.”
“Well! I think you are right about house servants. But on the farm, in your position, for instance, as foreman, there is some difference, is there not? Supposing some gentleman should offer you more than we do, what would you think of that?”
“That he was no gentleman. I don’t see the difference. If he wished to make any such offer, he should go to my employer and state the case, but not to me.”
“But you are not bound to stay with us. If you can better yourself, you have a perfect right to do so. You are a free man.”
“Yes, I know that; but I think there should be some honor, if there is no law, about such things; and I don’t think a gentleman acts honorably who tempts a man with offers of higher wages to leave his employer’s service. Let him go, like a man, to the proprietor of the work himself.”
“Maggie,” said we afterward, “if a lady should send one of her girls to you with an offer for more wages than I give, what would you think of it?”
“O, I’ve had that trick tried on me, ma’am! Noladywould do it, and I’d not risk living with any one who would connive at such a mean thing.”
“Why, what would you have her do?”
“Come right to yer, ma’am, or advertise. Sure the papers are open to any one who chooses to advertise.”
Now, this subject appears too clear for any question of right or wrong, liberty or slavery. The same course—open and above-board—should be plain to both employer and employé. Among business men this law of honor is fully understood. The amount of wages in all employments is well defined. Custom fixes the prices for specified labor. It is those who offer beyond the accepted rates who cause most of the trouble experienced in all classes of labor.
A manufacturer engages a certain number of men to work in his mill. He offers and they accept the regular rates of payment. A neighboring manufacturer is short of hands, and privately goes to these men,bribingthem, for it is nothing short of a bribe, with offers of higher wages to leave their present work and come to him. If their ideas of honor are no higher than his own, they will probably accept the bribe, and their first employer’s mills must stand idle until he can secure others to fill their places. Would you not call this dishonorable? This is acceded to in the outdoor world, among merchants, mechanics, manufacturers, and farmers. But how much more sacred, how much stronger, should this code of honor be to us, in the family!
If we learn that a girl has “given warning” to her employer of her intention to leave, we have a perfect right to try and secure her; but to avoid the least appearance of evil, to do truly “as we would be done by,” we should think it but wise and just to go first to the lady and signify our wishes, making such inquiries as may be needed. In the case given by “Laicus,” however, the nurse-maid is sent, and offers of higher wages given through her. The girl isbought.We cannot think it acting honorably by the mistress or kindly by the maid. If tempted once to act secretly, she probably can be again, and from a useful, reliable servant may become one on whom there can be no dependence.
If this mode of securing assistance is accepted as a correct and honorable practice, no one is safe. In every department we shall be at the mercy of the selfish and unscrupulous.
The laborer is evidently worthy of his hire, and in this country no class of people are likely to remain long in ignorance of the price they can command, or to estimate their ability at too low a rate.
We object to no one’s obtaining the full value for his work, but claim that there should be no meddling, no underhand work to buy servants or laborers from another, by the private offer of larger wages. Advertising is open to all, and brings the needed help to you; but if you do not choose that mode of supplying yourselves with laborers, then let the employer be applied to, and if you can give his or her servants better terms than they now receive, there are not many who will not advise them to accept the offer. We do not think that ladies enact any such law, as that “no servant shall be offered a better post than the one now occupied, so long as he or she remains in it”; but we do claim that the good old rule should be as fully recognized in dealing with a neighbor’s servant as in everything else, namely, “Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you.”