Clockmakers' Paradise
The claim made by certain shop stewards on behalf of 200 redundant workers at the Smith Clock Company's factory at Cricklewood is, on the face of it, beautifully simple. It is that, although there is no work for them, these employees should be retained and paid "pending suitable alternative employment." As a demand that the Smith Clock Company should hand over a sum of money for nothing, or else suffer the consequences of a strike, it has a bluntness which any gangster might admire. But the effect is partially spoiled by the further claim of the shop stewards concerned that they are only demanding "the right to work" and that the right of Workers to be paid for not working is a "basic principle." These supplementary arguments have a certain untidiness which is not noticeable in the main demand. Thus they involve defining the term "the right to work" and "the right to be paid for not working" in such a way that the two are identical. They also disclose that, in taking on a worker, an employer is, as a basic principle, guaranteeing him a wage for life, whether he has work for him or not. This has already startled the Federation of British Industries and it may even shock the official trade union leaders (as distinct from the shop stewards referred to above). It is true, no doubt, that the phrase pending suitable alternative employment" in the original demand holds out to employers a hope that they may not be tied for ever to redundant employees. But the word "suitable" is, of course, capable of varying interpretations. Thus, in this particular case, the fact that Ministry of Labour officials have actually attended at the factory and told the strike committee that other work could be found for the redundant employees, does not seem to have settled the matter. Can it be that the shop stewards, who have received the consistent backing of the Daily Worker, do not want it to be settled ?
Previous page
