Workers Sacked for their Opinions
A case came before the Court recently in which three workers claimed that it was illegal, under the National Service Act, for their employers (a Co-operative Society!) to sack them merely because they were conscientious objectors. The magistrate, quite properly, confined himself to the legal position, and refused to express any opinion on the action of the Co-operative Society, but his judgment made it clear that not only under that Act, but also at Common Law, it is quite legal for an employer to dismiss his workers because he does not like their opinions.
The following extract from the judgment of the Huddersfield Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr. W. R. Briggs, is taken from The Manchester Guardian (October 29th, 1940): —
“The evidence was, and he had already found as a fact, that each complainant was dismissed because he was a conscientious objector. No man was bound to employ another of whose opinions or conduct he disapproved, and provided that he gave the proper amount of notice an employer might dismiss his employee for any or no reason.
It was possible that there might be employers who would dismiss a man because he was a Conservative or a Communist, a trade unionist or a non-unionist, a Roman Catholic or an atheist. Such action might or might not be reprehensible— he expressed no opinion on that point—but if the proper notice was given it would certainly not be illegal. Similarly in his opinion it was not illegal either at Common Law or under the Act to dismiss an employee because his religious beliefs made him a conscientious objector. For these reasons he was of opinion that the prosecution had failed to establish the commission of any offence and all the summonses would be dismissed.”
The defenders of Capitalism will say, of course, that the wages contract is a free contract between worker and employer, and it is free to the worker to leave because he does not like his employer’s views just as it is open to the employer to dismiss the worker. The notion of equality before the law is nonsense. The worker faces the loss of his livelihood, while the employer is at most slightly inconvenienced if a worker leaves.
The absurdity of the law can be seen from another angle, the activities of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology and similar bodies. For example, in the April, 1940, issue of their journal, “Occupational Psychology,” is a report by two investigators who used various tests to discover why a number of unemployed girls came to be out of work. The investigators studied the “intelligence” of the girls in the light of various intelligence tests (The so called “Dotting Test,” under which “the subject” ims through a slot at a number of paper discs fixed on a rotating plate, is worthy of notice by “Beachcomber”). The investigators and the Institute are no doubt thoroughly reliable, there is no trouble they will not go to, and no field of inquiry is closed to them— well, no field except one. Never on any occasion are they called in by the workers to conduct Dotting Tests or any other tests, on the intelligence, diligence, nervous stability, etc., etc., of the shareholders, directors, or other bosses in the concern. Nowhere do they ever conduct intelligence tests based on the principle that the more intelligent the worker the mere he or she resents the privileged position of the propertied class and the crass stupidity of the present industrial arrangements for which the latter are responsible.
Among all the very clever people who conduct investigations, including all the bright brains known as captains of industry, and the thousands of inventive geniuses, not one can rise to the slight insight and imagination required to see that industry could be (and will be under Socialism) run on a basis which will separate working from getting a living. Every one of them accepts it as a kind of inescapable law of nature that the worker (but not the Capitalist) shall only get a living if and while he can get an employer to approve of him (and his opinions). They fondly imagine, if they ever think about it at all, that unless the threat of the sack is always held over the heads of the workers, work would cease and all would die of starvation. They do not understand the obvious fact that the cult of dislike for work is itself simply a product, on the one side, of the Capitalist’s snobbish contempt for those who have to work because they are propertyless, and on the other, of the workers’ resentment of the conditions under which they have to work. Socialism will have its problems, but this will not be one that will be of dimensions sufficient to cause anyone the slightest disquiet.
* * *
A New World Order for Millionaires
New world orders are all the rage to-day, though some of them do not look very new. On the day that the Press published an account of Mr. Herbert Morrison’s outline of his new world order, the Ministry of Information issued a pronouncement from which it seems that the new order is already in being in the British Empire. When the Ministry claims (Daily Herald, December 12th, 1940) that “This is the only kind of World Order worth having—the only guarantee of security and happiness when the war is over,” they are very optimistic if they think that it will look so attractive to the populations of countries outside the Empire. The Daily Herald wants the Government to issue a statement of war aims, “making it clear that we are fighting for a new kind of world” (December 12th), but at the same time it wants the statement to be one “to which every party subscribes, and which carries the endorsement of the whole Commonwealth.” What sort of statement is it going to be if it fulfils the condition? Plainly, if it has got to be endorsed by the Conservative Party, it will be about as new and attractive as the kind of new world produced after the last war. It will certainly not be the only kind of new world worth having, a Socialist world. In his speech at the Dorchester Hotel, Mr. Morrison wanted an end to social insecurity and of a state of things “where millions go in need while supplies are deliberately kept short, or prices high, so that profits may be safeguarded,” but if the Daily Herald report is correct, he nowhere pointed to the cause, the class division of society. Had he done so, it would certainly not have been possible for one of his audience, Lord Nuffield, to say to the Chairman, Lord Nathan, afterwards, “I agree with every word of the speech—and I am a millionaire.” (Daily Herald, December 12th.) Another sidelight on the meeting was the statement attributed to Mr. Morrison by the Evening Standard (December 12th): ” I want change so big that I do not like to tell you about it.”
* * *
War has a Logic of its Own
Molotov has been reported to have said, recently, that war has a logic of its own. This is something worth considering by anyone who thinks that war can be waged under all kinds of restrictions designed to curb its ferocity. The following passage is taken from General de Gaulle’s “The Army of the Future “: —
“If war is, in essence, destructive, the ideal of those who wage it remains, none the less, economy, the least massacre with the greatest results; a combination of forces making use of death, suffering and terror in order to attain the goal as quickly as possible, and so put an end to all three.”
As
Alexander Werth says, in the
Manchester Guardian (December 3rd, 1940): “Except, perhaps, for the last few words, the German Generals would no doubt fully subscribe to these sentiments.”
* * *
Mr, Maurice Webb Makes a Discovery
Mr. Maurice Webb writes articles for the
Daily Herald. He shares their political views, and supports the Labour Party policy on war. That is to say, he has for years preached that it was necessary to “stand up to Fascism,” even if that meant waging war against the Fascist countries. He believes that there was no other way of securing peace and Democracy for the world’s workers. He not only held these views, but he took it upon himself, in the columns of the
Daily Herald, to teach these things to others, who, in his view, had not grasped the truth about world affairs. Now those who set up as teachers are in effect assuring those who listen to them that they have learned before teaching and have fully considered the consequences of what they say should be done. But Mr. Maurice Webb, it seems, did not do this. It is only now, when the war is well into its second year, that he has begun to notice what war is, and what it does.
At the beginning he was full of that curious belief that we were all very friendly towards the German workers, and that the war was being waged not only for us but also for them. We would, he thought, just strike a blow to remove their oppressors, and then, all free men joined together in amity, we would set the world aright. Only Mr. Webb had quite forgotten to study war, its consequences, and the way it has to be waged. So now he has had a shock. He wrote an article, in the style that his readers adored at Christmas, 1939, only to find that this Christmas his readers, or many of them, have moved on and don’t want that kind of stuff any more. They have been bombed and they think differently.
He still thinks in terms of “Peace without vengeance.” They want vengeance, and plenty of it. In the Daily Herald of December 7th, he reproduces extracts from their letters. For them the German people are snakes in the grass, “and must be ruthlessly exterminated.” Likewise the Japs The German is “a loathsome beast.” Emphatically, “there are no good Germans.” “Grind them down to misery and poverty for a million years.”Wipe the damned lot off the face of the earth.” Poor Mr. Webb says, sadly, “there can be little doubt that the majority of Britons are beginning to nurse very bitter feelings towards the German people.”
Now Mr. Webb is in a quandary. If we are to have permanent peace, there must be no vengeance after the war, but the Allied Statesmen will not be able to succeed in that task, he says, if they have at their backs “hosts of envenomed ‘clean sweepers’ urging them on to suicidal and ruinous policies.” It looks, indeed, as if Mr. Webb is almost convinced already that the kind of peace he says we must have is just the kind of peace his readers decidedly will not accept. They have had a bitter dose of war, and the consequence is just what everyone expected who had seriously taken note of what modern war is and what it does. But Mr. Webb was not one of these. He did not share the Socialist view that war sets in motion all sorts of destructive forces which make it impossible for war to be the kind of benevolent, constructive agent he thought possible.
If Mr. Webb is now learning his lesson and taking a responsible view of things, perhaps he will let us have his second and more useful thoughts. We would like to hear from Mr. Webb what he now thinks about his past notions.
* * *
The Profiteer
Socialists want to see the end of the profit system altogether, and have always thought the popular attitude to what is called “profiteering” an odd one. If it is good and necessary to encourage the making of profit, why try to limit it? Can there be too much of a good thing ?
Logical or not, war always brings a popular outcry against what are called profiteers. But when this war broke out, all the newspapers and politicians were agreed that it would be run on different lines from the last. Never again would there be big increases of prices, and emphatically not the making of big profits.
The following, however, is taken from the Sunday Express (December I5th, 1940): —
“The food profiteer is among us. He is making a lot of money. Last week hundreds of complaints concerning the swiftly rising prices of all kinds of unrationed food were received by the Food Ministry.
They alleged unfair distribution of food and “illegal conditions of sale” imposed by some brokers and wholesalers upon shopkeepers.
Another charge was that fixed price orders were being sidetracked by unscrupulous buyers.
Lord Woolton, the Minister, has now stated that anyone found imposing “conditions of sale” or buying over the fixed price will be prosecuted. Reports by his investigators will be placed before him to-morrow.
This much has been established. Huge profits in food are being made by someone, or some group of people, at present unidentified.”
* * *
Who Will Civilise America ?
“He advocates the liberation of India as the best way in which to impress America of the sincerity of British professions, and he urges America to throw herself wholeheartedly into the war, to send men as well as money, in order to establish a civilisation that will ensure to all belligerent peoples security and work.—(News-Chronicle, December 2nd, 1940.)
Mr. Lynd finds himself in agreement with the author of the book, but what simplicity lies in their hopes. They assume that India (does this mean the Indian peasant and workers?) will be “liberated” through a change in the relationship of the British Empire. Yet they must know that such a change, even if it meant complete severance, would still leave the mass of Indians enslaved to their own native-born ruling class. Next they assume that a desire to impress American opinion of their sincerity is a factor of vital importance to the British interests that stand for the retention of India. Why should it be? Equally flimsy is their expectation that those who at present control the United States will be concerned with establishing a new and better social order for the benefit of the populations of the European countries at war. Before inviting these rulers of America to put Europe right, Mr. Brailsford might have asked what the same gentlemen have done to America. In a recent issue of the Daily Telegraph (August 9th, 1940) it was reported from New York that there are in the U.S.A. more than 50 persons whose yearly income is £200,000 or more, and according to the Manchester Guardian (November 21st, 1940) a mere 13 families in that country control as part of their fortunes £540 million worth of securities in 200 of the leading corporations. This information was published in a report by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the same report disclosed that this colossal wealth represents only a part of the total possessions of the 13 families.
Among the 13 are Fords, with upwards of £120 million; Du Ponts, with over £110 million; and Rockefellers, with £80 million or more. This, be it noted, is after eight years of Roosevelt’s administration.
The necessary accompaniment of this accumulation of American resources in the hands of these and other industrial and financial barons is the existence of extreme poverty in the ranks of the workers, millions of unemployed, widespread undernourishment and all the other evils of capitalist civilisation. One aspect of this has again been brought to light when conscripts were called up under the compulsory military training scheme. According to the New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (November 28th, 1940), “much surprise has been caused by the large proportion of men called up …. but rejected by army doctors. Although these men had been passed as physically fit by a medical examiner who assisted the local selective boards, many who are now reporting for duty are being sent home again, principally on the grounds that teeth or eyesight are not up to army standards. It is estimated that rejections are roughly at the rate of one in four . . . .”
Before Mr. Brailsford concluded that the Fords, Du Fonts, Rockefellers and their like are to be the civilisers of Europe, he should have wondered when the American workers are going to begin a little job of civilising at home.
Edgar Hardcastle
