Another interesting statement made at question-time on Tuesday was that
by Mr. Haldane. He stated that a case had recently occurred where an infantry Reservist was discharged by his employers in consequence of his having attended for his one day's training on a Saturday. The authorities, he added, "regard the training of Army Reservists in relation to their civil employment as such an important question that they have taken action in this particular case, and the firm in question has been removed from the list of War Department contractors." On being asked what action would be taken in cases where the employer was not a contractor of the Govern- ment, Mr. Haldane declared that he had "no power at all." That, no doubt, is strictly true, but we cannot help thinking that in a case where the contractor is removed from the Army List, and still more in a case where the employer is not amenable to a reproof of this kind, the Secretary of State should make public the name of the firm. We feel sure that such examples of foolish tyranny and anti. patriotism would not long survive the publicity thus given to them. If the work of a factory or a business were seriously interfered with by the absence of a workman for several days, it might be reasonable for the employer to say that the Government and the nation ought not to expect him to bear the loss. No appreciable loss, however, could take place under the conditions named. Such cases, we are certain, are very rare indeed, but that is no reason why the remedy of publicity should not be applied to them.
Previous page
