A General view ...

Salvos Online continues a series of unexpected and decidedly prescriptive teachings that General William Booth gave to his soldiers 124 years ago, excerpting the 1902 publication Letters to Salvationists on Religion for Every Day (volume 1). We are publishing General Booth’s thoughts on everyday topics, including sickness and bereavement, sleep, hygiene, life challenges, conversation, clothing, poverty, the Bible and the Sabbath, industrial relations and more.

---

BOSSES AND WORKERS

 

BY GENERAL WILLIAM BOOTH Salvation Army co-founder

(The article below is General William Booth’s original transcript.)

My dear comrades, in settling how much Work he will do, a man must have due regard to the claims of his own health. If he rushes at his work without due discretion, and does more than his strength will reasonably allow, he will probably break down, and so prevent his working altogether, or for a season, at least.

Whereas, if he exhausts no more energy than he can recover by sleep and food and rest, at the time, he can go steadily forward, and by doing so, accomplish a great deal more, in the long run, than he would by temporary extravagant exertion.

When speaking on this subject, I sometimes say that I use my body as I should use a horse (if I had one); I should not seek to get the most labour out of him for a week, regardless of the future, but I should feed and manage him with a view to getting the most I could get out of him all the year round.

When the proper performance of a particular task depends upon the united labour of a number of individuals, who have agreed to work in co-operation, it will be necessary, in the interests of the whole, that each should conform to the regulations laid down, always supposing that such rules are in harmony with truth and righteousness.

The wishes and interests of employers have also to be taken into consideration. But, in every case, the principle is equally obligatory upon all. These duties will demand, and must have devoted to them, a measure of the time at our control. What that amount of time shall be must be determined by the relative importance of those duties.

I protest against … the notion, born of indolence and selfishness, which affirms that we should do as little, rather than as much, Work as is consistent with the maintenance of health, and with the claims arising out of the relations in which we stand to those about us. However, circumstances will transpire during the earthly career of every one of us, calling for self-sacrificing Work that must be performed, regardless of consequences to health or any other interest.

I am continually haunted by the curiosity which seeks an answer to the questions: Does anyone read what I write? And reading, do they understand what I say? And understanding, do they agree with what is said? But what is most important of all: Is anybody the better for what I have written?

However, without waiting for answers to these questions, I suppose I must practise what I preach, and go on writing my Letters, as well as I possibly can. And at the risk of being tedious, I propose again to mention some of the things for which I have contended, and to add one or two more arguments in their favour. My contention then, is, that whether in the shop or on the ship, in the parlour or in the kitchen, in the factory or in the field, on the Salvation platform or in the coal mine, whether Officers or Soldiers, we are all alike, as Servants of God, under the obligation to do all we possibly can in the service of men; and to do it with the holy motive of pleasing our Heavenly Master …

You must work for [your] master, or mistress, as the case may be, from the voluntary principle of love rather than the earthly and selfish principle of gain. A man does not say, I will toil for my delicate wife, and deny myself pleasant things, in order to obtain for her the necessaries and comforts she requires, because she would do the same for me, if I were in her place and she in mine. Nothing of the kind.

Every employer is responsible before God for supplying his servants, to the extent of his ability, not only with the bare necessities of existence, but also with the care and the sympathy, the counsel, and the thousand other things indispensable to the servant's well-being, for which the master ought to feel some reasonable concern.

Not to consider and provide for the well-being of those in your employment, so far as you have ability, up to the level of this standard, is to place the servant on as low, or even a lower, level than the southern planter placed his slaves, or the farmer places his cattle.

If a mother would like a nurse to care for her children, which most mothers would, then the mother must care for the nurse. If a husband would like a maid to care for his wife, wait upon her in health, and watch her in sickness, then he must show, in some suitable manner, his consideration for the maid.

If the master would like his employees to give their whole souls to the promotion of his business, making that their first concern, and working all hours, reasonable and unreasonable, for its prosperity, then he must minister to the welfare of those employees with the same practical anxiety.

Do I advocate that masters and mistresses should aim at placing their servants on a social level with themselves? No; I advocate nothing of the kind, and that for two reasons.

It would be impossible to accomplish it, even if attempted. The instincts of both servants and masters would be against such an arrangement. Perhaps, this instinct is nothing more than a prejudice. Well, if so, it is there, and its eradication would be impossible without filling up the social gulf that at present separates the two classes, and the distinction necessitates a difference in their treatment.

Servants themselves do not desire such equality. For instance, they would, as a rule, be like fish out of water if invited to take their meals in the dining room with the family, or to pass their evenings in the drawing-room with the visitors.

A wife told me the other day that she had not had her clothes off for 17 days and nights in nursing her husband; it did not make it appear that she thought she was doing anything extraordinary, or that she rendered this service to her companion in life because she felt sure that had he been the wife and she the husband, he would have gladly done the same for her.

We come down to the low level of self-interest. We insist then, that those who work from the motive of love, rather than the motive of gain, will not necessarily be sufferers in consequence, so far as this world goes. But it may be asked, “Will not unprincipled masters or mistresses be likely to take advantage of this docile and unselfish spirit?” Perhaps, nay, doubtless, in many cases, they will.

The Salvation Army has been taken advantage of all through its past history, and so have all the true Saints of God, because they have submitted to wrong, and have not fought the injustice and false representations and persecutions inflicted upon them from the beginning. It will possibly be so to the end, but that does not affect the principle for which I argue, which is, that we must do good Work, and as much of it as we can, regardless of what the world may give us in return.

I now say, as plainly as I possibly can, that it is the Duty of the master to deal with his servants on the same principles, and from the same motives, that he expects his servants to deal with him – that is, he must promote the welfare of his servants to the utmost of his ability. The servants are placed under his charge, by God, for this very purpose, and he is under an obligation to make them, as far as he can, happy, holy, and useful. And that obligation is, to a certain extent, as binding upon him as if the servants were his own children …

Neither have I had money, or the supply of things that money will buy, exclusively in my mind. In addition to the supply of the bare necessities of existence, I have been thinking of the care and the sympathy, the counsel, and the thousand other things indispensable to the servant's well-being, for which the master ought to feel some reasonable concern.