The Judge Who Stood Up to the Injunction
A local Everett judge delivers a fiery defense of the right to strike and critique of the 'injunction' as a tool against labor organization.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
In a case before the local court, the judge denied an application for a temporary injunction against striking workers, declaring that labor has rights equal to capital. The court noted that mill owners routinely strike the public by withholding shingles to manipulate prices, and therefore, workers have a corresponding right to strike and use peaceful persuasion. The judge criticized the use of 'stock affidavits'—canned, pre-written testimony—to secure restraining orders against strikers, asserting that simply calling a worker a 'scab' does not constitute violence or intimidation justifying the 'strong arm of the law.' He concluded that without evidence of actual force or physical threat, the court would not interfere in the exercise of labor's rights.
“Labor and capital have just exactly the same rights. There ought to be no distinction or difference.”
This ruling highlights a century-old tension in Everett over the balance of power between capital and labor. Just as the court then grappled with the use of injunctions to break strikes, modern labor disputes continue to hinge on the definitions of protected speech and the legal limits of industrial action.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.