Hired Labor in the Law of God
Between a Laborer and a Servant
When the time comes to define the difference between the status of hired free labor and an indentured servant, the Law is clear. the Laborer works only as long as he wishes so:
"Rav Nachman responded: So long as he did not recanted (his contract) his hand is like the hand of the master, and recanting is possible due to a seperate principle [i.e. not because he is not the master's agent] -- as it is written (Leviticus 25, 55): "For unto Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants" -- and not servants to servants."
The indentured servant on the other hand, may be obliged by his master to work both day and nightand cannot escape his indenture before it lapses naturally (albeit he can buy it out):
“For double of the hire of a hired worker he has served you” (Deuteronomy 15:18); that a hired laborer works only during the day, whereas a Hebrew servant works both during the day and at night."
here we see a completly different approach than the demands of the Western Labor movement: not a demand for greater compensation or "work conditions", stemming from special "worker's rights" but rather a standing on the rights of laborer as a free man creating certain inherent limitations on his contract. As a matter of fact, as far as "work conditions" go, the indentured servant is in a superior position to that of the free-laborer:
As it is taught (concerning a Hebrew servant): “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16): With you, in food, with you in drink.
That you shan't eat fine-ground bread while he eats coarse bread, you shan't drink aged wine while he drinks new wine, you shan't sleep on soft bedding while he sleeps on straw. From here it was taught: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew servant acquires a master for himself, (because he must be careful that the slave’s living conditions are equal to his own)."
In regard to hired labor, on the other hand, the case is different:
"In a place where employers are accustomed to feeding their laborers, they must feed them. If they are in a locale where the master of the house is accustomed to providing their laborers with sweet foods, he must provide such food. Everything is in accordance with the local custom in these matters."
While this certainly burdens the employer with feeding his workers according to local costume which is undertood to be an implicit condition of the contract, the Law does not tie it to the master's level of consumption.
On Organization of Labor and Arts
Principally, the Law allows for local commons to establish such institutions and rules as fit their situation, with certain limitations.
Particularly it had been taught:
The (charity) Box [i.e. cash money charity] is collected by two (officials) and divided (amongst the poor) by three. It is collected by two, for we never allow any public office to be held by less than two (colleagues). It is divided by three, as are all money judments (dealt with).
The (charity) Basket [i.e. the food charity] is collected by three and divided by three, for her collection and division are equal (every day).
The Basket is for the poor of the entire world, (but) the Box only for the poor of the town.
And the men of each town are potent to turn the Basket (funds) to the Box, or the Box to the Basket and to alter both as they please.
And the men of each town are potent to make agreement on measures, prices and the wages of laborers and to fine (those who transgress) upon these edicts.
From the last part it was surmised soon that the men of the same trade may also make such agreements amongst themselves. As it is shown in this legal anecdote:
Those butecheries agreed between themselves that if one shall deal in the day of his colleague he shall have his leather [i.e. either the hides of the animals he slaughtered that day or his leather apron, the symbol of his profession]. One of them did, and the others had his leather torn.
He came before Raba and Raba obligated them to compensate him.
Rab Jemar son of Shelemia asked him: "And 'To fine upon these edicts' Raba was not taught?" Raba didn't reply.
Rab Papa said: "He did well that he hadn't reply to him. These words apply when there is no exalted person among them, but if there is, they have no power to make such agreement".
Rabbi Jodah Ibn Migash (1077-C. 1141) explains the term Exalted Person-
Appointed upon the Public.
Similiarly Rabbi Gershom of Byzantium explains:
Exalted Person - to make the agreement before him.
The "Exalted Person" in question cannot be exalted by public opinion alone. He must be a recognized and appointed officer, by whom all such agreements are scrutinized and approved. In later Halakhic discourse such an officer or a body would be known as "Heber Ha-Ir" "the College of the City".
Here we see an interesting understanding of the right to organize: on one hand, the right of local tradesmen and laborers to organize and to set conditions to their organization is undertood as an iteration of the right of the townsmen to organize and legislate. Indeed "they are considered the towesmen in regard to their profession". But since their organization have an adverse effect upon the town as a whole, they cannot do it in defiance of an officer elevated by the Commons to oversee such matters.