LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT (COMPENSATION). (Hansard, 23 July 1930)

§ Mr. LATHAN
I beg to move, That, leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for the loss of employment. It is not inappropriate that this Motion of mine should precede the Motion for the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, because the Bill to which I invite the House to give the First Reading this afternoon is designed to bridge, if not entirely to fill, what many people regard as a very serious gap in social legislation. Its purpose is to secure the 2167 payment of legal minimum compensation to those non-manual workers who are so unfortunate as to be deprived of their employment through no fault of their own, but on account of some action on the part of their employers. It is desirable, perhaps, that I should, at the outset, explain to the House just the type of employed person whom I have in mind when I refer to non-manual workers. I have in my mind that large army of clerical, technical, supervisory and professional and semi-professional workers, who, I believe, Members on all sides of the House will agree, form so important and essential a part in our industrial and commercial organisation. It is not very often that one can charge this kind of employed person with being very vocal. I wish sometimes they were a little more vocal than they are, but, at any rate, it stands to their credit so far as the time of the House is taken up on their behalf, and I hope that consideration will be given to that fact when at last attention is given to a well-founded claim on their part. They have very frequently been overlooked, and I propose to ask the House to-day, in giving the First Reading to this Bill, to remedy the oversight there has been in so far as they are concerned.
My Bill provides that where employment of such persons as I have mentioned is terminated by the employer for reasons other than serious or wilful misconduct on the part of the employed persons, or on attaining the normal retirement age provided for in the superannuation or pension fund of which he or she is a member, or on the abolition of office or situation for which compensation is provided in some other way, the employer shall pay to such employé one-twelfth part of the total remuneration for each completed year of service. In other words, an employed person deprived of his or her position shall be entitled to one month's pay for each year of service, and, further—and this aspect of the case is important—when the employment is terminated by death, bankruptcy or liquidation of the employer, any such amount as is payable under the provisions of the Bill shall have priority as if it were salary or wages payable under the Bankruptcy Act or the Companies Act.
2168 The need for such provision as I suggest in this Bill has, in recent years, become increasingly acute. The old relationships that previously existed between what are known as staff workers, confidential employés and so on, men and women, have been broken down, have been dispelled almost entirely; they are rapidly passing away, if they have not already gone. This is the day of large scheme organisation of industry and commerce, of trustification, of rationalisation—words which are all too familiar to many of us. Those for whom I speak in this matter—and they are many hundreds of thousands—recognise these inevitable tendencies; they cannot help but recognise them, because, being engaged in commercial undertakings, they are naturally realists. But if, as it may be argued, these modern tendencies in industrial and commercial life are in the public interest, as is frequently submitted to this House, then proceeding along lines which have been laid down by Parliament in other Acts, we say that there must be protection for those who, but for such protection, would be seriously victimised and affected by such arrangements.
Perhaps the House will allow me to illustrate the kind of case—all too frequent in industry to-day—that I have in mind. A responsible clerk, an engineer, a shop or store manager, may, after many years of service, be cast adrift, with a month's salary, or less. Examples of this character have recently come under the notice of the National Federation of Professional Workers with which I have been associated for a number of years. A maintenance engineer, with 14 years' satisfactory service, terminated with a month's notice. A draughtsman, 35 years' service, no complaint whatever against him, one week's notice. A confidential secretary, a woman, 50 years of age—and in the case of women the tragedy is even deeper than in the case of men, because the possibility of their securing employment at that age is very remote indeed-21 years service, a month's notice only. A short time ago there was a large scale amalgamation between insurance companies of London, and 100 members of the clerical staff with service ranging up to 20 years were dispensed with at one month's notice only. A shop manager of a big 2169 multiple firm, with 30 years' service, taken ill through overwork, one week's notice. The firm declined to pay him even a week's pay in respect of his annual holiday which was due. The great bulk of these people are not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
I want to say here, in case there should be any misunderstanding, that I desire to draw no invidious distinction between the class of employed persons to which I refer and the large number of persons who come within range of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, but I am sure the House will realise that, whatever the difficulties of the ordinary worker may be, the case of the employed person of the type to which I have referred in the later years of his or her life is infinitely more difficult when cast adrift. Not only does this apply to people engaged in industry and commerce, but to men employed on the Press. Journalists are affected. Through the combination of two papers in London a few weeks ago, 600 men were affected, I am told. Some of the men on the editorial side went to the office in the evening entirely ignorant of the face that their paper would not be produced, and their services would not be required.
The principle that I am asking the House to recognise is not a new principle. It has been recognised by Parliament, whenever it has had foresight, in the case of workers affected by Acts dealing with The Metropolitan Water Board, dock amalgamation, railways, and local and national government service. It is recognised in industry and commerce as far as directors are concerned when they are displaced from their positions. Only a day or two ago the newspapers contained information with regard to a case where each one of a board of directors is to receive seven years' compensation for loss of office. We say that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. We have previously taken pride in this country in the belief that we led, as I think we do, in social legislation, but in this respect we are behind. In Germany, Austria, Belgium, France and Italy, provision has been made along varying lines to meet the cases of the kind to which I have referred. In submitting this Bill, I ask the House to place this country in the position which, 2170 I hope, all of us believe it should occupy in regard to legislation of this character, and I hope that the House will unanimously give the First Reading to this Bill.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I want to pass some criticism on a statement made by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan). He said he wished to give compensation to the professional class in this country, or what might be called the non-manual workers, for loss of employment which might come about, say, by amalgamation or the process of rationalisation.

§ Mr. LATHAN
May I put the hon. Member right? He is entirely under a misapprehension if he believes that I referred only to the professional worker. I referred to the non-manual worker.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I said the professional or non-manual worker. I had in my mind the professional worker as a non-manual worker. I have two lines of criticism to offer to this Bill. First of all, I object to the Statutes of this country, if I can possibly avoid it, picking out for preferential treatment one section of the community. The way in which the hon. Member ought to attack this problem is by facing the facts. Undeniably, as he states, professional and non-manual workers are being displaced in many cases in a cruel, brutal and callous fashion. That, however, does not apply to them alone; it applies also to manual workers. We are told that the difference is that a large section of the non-manual workers are not covered by unemployment insurance, but the non-manual worker who is not so covered usually has over £5 a week. Those who have less than £5 are covered in the same way, in most cases, as every other worker. We are being asked for compensation for the man of £5 a week who has had 20 years steady service and has been given a month's notice. I have had eight years steady work, and if anybody had told me that I was going to have eight years steady work at £400 a year, I would not have believed them. We are told that we are to pick out these people, who are comparatively speaking the fortunate ones among the working classes, for special treatment, and quite obviously it is wrong.
2171 In these days of rationalisation, laboursaving machinery, and combinations of firms, we cannot pick out one class of worker for special treatment. The Government are aiding, and all Governments are aiding the process of rationalisation, and if men are going to be displaced, it ought to be a State and a community charge. If compensation is to be paid, we ought to bring within the ambit of unemployment insurance every class of worker, no matter what his income may be. Having done that, we ought to see that the income of the unemployed ought to be made sufficient to meet family needs. The moulder displaced through the oncoming of machinery, after having had only eight months work, and never having been sure of 12 months steady work in his life, ought to be given the same income as the professional class when he is unemployed. Some of us tried to get a provision of that sort under the last Unemployment Insurance Bill, and under the Coal Mines Bill we attempted to get a Clause to provide compensation for the miner who is in a much worse position than the non-manual worker. I am not going to carry this to a Division, but I do not want the feeling to grow up that the non-manual worker and the professional person should have preferential treatment over the rest of the community. I am going to make my stand for the poorer section of the community. The hon. Member says that they get unemployment insurance, but they get it through their own money, and they do not get compensation. In order to be logical, the hon. Member ought to bring in a Bill to compensate not merely the fairly well-off, but every worker who is turned out of work through circumstances over which he has no control.