,The„

opecuator November 17, 1973 SOCIETY

TODAY

Wimpy Agonistes

Francis Wintle

All over London the Wimpies were 'going out, and I wondered to myself, as I made my way from Leicester Square to Piccadilly, having searched in vain for my staple diet of beefburger and strawberry special, shall we see their like again? All over London the bons vivants were shaking their heads, as the old order seemed threatened by the impending international crisis. The Texas-style pancake with maple syrup and cream, the Scottish steak and chips — the inalienable rights of every Englishman, were in danger. All over London demonstrators were out there, on the pavements; placards raised above the heads of passers-by and the depressed policemen detailed to keep watch;. and when we saw them, we knew that the Wimpy itself, our last refuge, was under international attack.

I do not refer to the compTlic pattern of crisis and ceasefire in the Middle East, which is bad enough, or to the resulting oil crisis. I refer, of course, to the Turkish sittaation. Or, for those of you who really know which side your pancake is fried, the problem of the Cypriot Turks.

Well, to cut a long story short, as soon as I saw what the trouble was, I made my way right up to the north end of Wardour Street — to D'Arblay Street to be precise, In that street I found the small building I was searching for, and, my heart beating violently and without intermission, mounted the narrow stairs, to the very top.

They (the Cypriot Turks that is; for it was, as you may have guessed, the offices of the Cypriot Turkish Association that I was visiting), were very kind to me. They gave me a chair on the tiny landing by the telephone; they gave me a cup of, I take it, Cypriot Turkish coffee, and grouped themselves round me sitting respectively on, the table, the stairs and the floor. We then discussed the situation. It was as follows.

There were pickets in Leicester Square; there were pickets all the way out to the furthermost suburbs. There were pickets outside nearly half the Wimpy Bars, Aberdeen Steak Houses and Texas Pancake Houses in London. And the placards proclaimed, not quite accurately, but never mind, that in the branches of the London Eating' Houses it was possible to work for 100 hours and earn only £25. Not quite accurate. However, it does appear that people were working 80 hours a week and more for a little over £40, and that the basic rate for a waiter in licensed branches was, for a 42-hour week, 25p an hour.

Of course, waiters are one thing. But let us take the case of the washer-up, who was probably earning at a rate of 37Ip an hour for the basic 42-ho,ur week. A modest calculation shows that he would earn £15.75 a week basic, or £819 a year, no less. Or to put it another way, only twice what a single pensioner gets — but that, of course, is another story.

Now before I get accused of making trouble I should say right away that London Eating Houses were paying wages in accordance with the Wages Council rates, and they have acted perfectly properly throughout the dispute from all accounts. However, it would also be fair to say that those official rates are very lbw — and I was told that they had not altered since June 1972.

Now why Turks, or rather, Cypriot Turks? Well, the answer is simply that London Eating Houses employ large numbers of them, and smaller numbers also of Spaniards, Greeks and Portuguese.

And part of the difficulty, as I found, was that many of them could barely understand any English, and certainly did not understand the mysterious workings or their own pay slips, let alone whether they were paying the right tax. The gentlemen I was seeing were the members of the Turkish Workers Committee. They -claimed to be part of the International Workers Branch of the T&GWU. However, their activities were shrouded in a certain amount of mystery. For instance, they jumped the gun by calling out all ,their members and sympathisers, as I have described, on the very day when the official 'union negotiator was due to see the managetnent; because, they said, the management had been dragging its feet about the negotiations in question — a charge that was denied. The union negotiator, a most patient Mr John Stephens, duly informed everyone that the picketing was unofficial and set about his business as best he could; and no one, it is hardly

surprising to relate, seemed very clear about what was going on.

A week after it had started, Mr Stephens managed to arrange a ceasefire. Subject, that is, to the next infringement of the truce by the Turkish forces. And the sacked men have been reinstated.

And that, you might think, is the end of my story. Not at all. There is still a lot more to say. Because, as everyone knows, it's never as easy as that.

Firstly, there is not a shadow of doubt that these foreign .workers (many of whom have been employed for some years — in other words they are not just casual labour) have been exploited. I do not mean that London Eating Houses are themselves guilty — they have to the best of my knowledge acted properly — but I do mean that the Cypriot Turks are exploited by the system of employment we allow.

They have, besides being paid a niggardly wage, had totally inadequate representation. The catering industry is not renowned for trade union activity. Indeed, in the case of London Eating Houses, a representative of the management told Me that the employees had demanded that there should be recognition of the union, and. that London Eating Houses had indeed recognised the union three weeks before. By which I take it that the union had not been recognised by the management prior to that.

Now foreign workers tend to get a raw deal in any case. For instance, I was told by the good Mr Stephens that one of the 4difficulties he has encountered in past negotiations concerns the holidays of foreign workers. They are often allowed to go home for periods of several weeks, and then reinstated on their return. Of course, employers are tempted sometimes to argue that if employees want union recognition and representation, and. union negotiators, then this kind of practice may not continue. That is what they call leaning on people. Whether this was the case in the London Eating Houses dispute I do not know.

There may be those among you who think that if a foreigner chooses to work here when we already have unemployment, he should take what he can get — or go elsewhere. Alternatively there may be others who think that they would rather not see cheap labour from abroad undercutting good British work. And there may be some who, like me, see no justification for paying inadequate wages to anyone; and who also 'recognise, by the by, that foreign workers are going to be making themselves less cheap in future, and who say good luck to them.

There may even be those who, still more like me and all rightthinking people, say that the situation I have described shows not just a case of inadequate wages, but a complete and disgraceful lack of communication between the parties in the first place, a pitiful lack of a mutually worked out wages structure between employer and employed (never mind the Wages Council)

— and, needless to say, the lack of minimum earnings legislation; all of which, had they been provided, would have given rise to a more happy situation in the' first place, and kept the Wimpy Bars open. Perhaps the general state of the catering trade, as regards employment, will improve. Perhaps we shall have more Mr Stephenses and even, one would hope, the automatic representation of all employees — which would, in turn, help th.e unions and the employers. If so, the sooner the better. It is, quite simply, both morally wrong and economically unwise, to employ, people, of any shape, size, creed or colour, for as little as possible, and then provide them with no means of representing themselves. For in the long run, even the forces of ignorance will be avenged,. and they will be in the right.

Francis Wintle works for the Liberal Party organisation.