Ending the Corporate Bias Against Married Workers

An editor of one of the labor papers of the state, in commenting upon the report of the State Federation of Labor relative to legislation secured during the recent session, said: 'We can congratulate ourselves that there was a return for the money expended.' Had we secured the enactment of but one of the ten measures reported—the right of dependent heirs to recover damages for the death of a single person—we would have gained for the dependent heirs many times the cost of our work before the session. For ten years, the employers of our state have discriminated against the employment of married men in favor of single men because, if death came to the single man through conditions under which the employer should be responsible, no such responsibility existed. Married men who were not familiar with our laws have often wondered why they were displaced by single men. During the legislative session, a large employer of labor, now a member of our State Senate, stated before the Labor Committee that he had in his employ 800 men, 799 of whom were single. Why? Because if any or all of the 799 were killed under conditions where their heirs could recover if they were married, the fact that they were single barred every possibility of recovery. The writer recalls the death of an engineer and fireman caused by an engine going through a defective bridge. The widow of the engineer recovered a liberal amount for his death. A mother and two younger sisters entirely dependent upon that fireman, a single man, for support, were left penniless. The aged mother was compelled to take in washing while the sisters secured employment in a department store at four dollars a week. To the attorneys of the state who are not owned by corporations, we owe thanks for assistance. While it has taken ten years to right this wrong, it was well worth the effort.