L.V.—this is the symbol which can be seen in the windows of many cafes, tea shops, snack bars and restaurants. It indicates that luncheon vouchers are accepted. The symbol has also cropped up in a recent advertisement, which shows a man sitting at a meal with, on his back, the words, “To work well he must eat well . . . regularly at lunch-time with L.V.” The advertisement also tells us that thousands of employers have arranged this nation-wide welfare service for the benefit of their workers. But is this all there is to say on the matter?
Many employers, when advertising vacancies, include the vouchers in the list of advantages extended to the lucky applicant. And workers fall for it: many of them, when bragging about having “an easy job,” remark that, along with the five day week, holidays with pay and sickness on full pay, they also receive luncheon vouchers. How nice, to think that employers are taking such an interest in the health and strength of their workers and are not leaving this vital matter to look after itself! Just fancy, instead of having to last the day on a ham sandwich or a bun and cuppa, our worker has his luncheon voucher and a whole hour in which he can eat to his heart's content. Every day, from Monday to Friday, our lucky working lads and lasses can wine and dine at the . . . at the . . . well, wherever they can get something for a two or three shilling voucher. We can be certain that, however they may “eat well,” the nurtured workers will not return to the job so full of lunch-time fare that they are too burdened to “work well.” Neverthelesss, these “better-off” workers are always grateful for small mercies, free meal tickets and all, and so skipping back to work, merrily they go.
Of course, Socialists will spoil it all by pointing out that the employer, instead of including the value of a week’s luncheon vouchers in his worker’s pay packets, merely gives out the same amount in the form of food tokens. And often uses this as an argument when resisting wage increases. The worker thinks he is being treated to lunch, instead of looking upon it as part of “the treatment.”
The question is why does the lunch on voucher amount to about three shillings instead of say, twenty-three? Simply because a worker's lunch can be bought for just about three shillings. In the same way, the total sum of all the purchases and expenses which a worker must make in order to live determines the total amount of his wages. He does not receive an unregulated sum which the employer hands out as a reward for being honest or hardworking or responsible. He gets roughly what it costs to maintain himself and his dependents.
But to return to our advertisement. We notice that its appeal is only to the employer and that it does not say “you (employer) must” but that “he (worker) must.” Is, then, both the eating and the working of the working class at the mercy of their masters? For example, if the workers cannot find an employer to buy their energies, there can be no work and very little eating. Our advertisement would not apply. Even to be allowed to work means that, to hold down their jobs, the workers must work well, try as some of them might to dodge it when the manager is out of sight. In fact, how well they work can be realised by a glance at any City Editor’s column. See there the facts and figures of the company reports, of the amazing profits which are made by the workers. Read, at the end of each chairman's chronicle, the compliments to the staff for working so well throughout the year.
And why only eat and work well? If, besides that, we were all to house and clothe well and to have everything else which we need, then all would be well, except for profits which would be so ill that they would die. It is inherent in the system of commodity production that the worker’s wages never tally with what he produces. The capitalist class, who own the factories, machinery and their produce, employ workers at the price of their wage. Workers are taken on to produce both enough to cover their wage and a surplus, which the capitalist commandeers. If the worker received as much as he produced, then his employer would not be able to dictate whether he should eat well or not; that would be his own responsibility.
To get rid of this exploitation, we must have a world in which food and all other wealth is produced simply to be used. A world in which all mankind has complete freedom of access to the world’s wealth, to satisfy its needs. It is the system of working for wages— whether or not they come partly as luncheon vouchers—which prevents the mass of people enjoying the full freedom and happiness which modern productive techniques can command. We need a world which works well for itself, to eat well—to live well
Joe McGuinness
No comments:
Post a Comment