of little help and succeeded in helping only 15% to find jobs. It has often been the contention of some socialists that sudden, catastrophic events like the Birmingham dismissals would tend to radicalise those sections of workers involved. What evidence that Dr. Kahn presents seems to point to the reverse. In spite of the fact that 45% of those who applied for help to their trade
unions were found jobs, there was a very obvious slump in regard for the unions. Twenty per cent. of men who had been trade unionists before the sackings refused to rejoin on reemployment. Amongst the remarks made by those who refused to rejoin were that “after paying 1/7 a week for two years, he had not got his money’s worth.” Some 45% of the sample decided that, in the event of redundancy, coloured and foreign workers should be asked to go first irrespective of length of service. Even more depressing than this to socialists is that only 27% of the dismissed workers believed that unemployment was not inevitable. The social nature of the economy was not remotely grasped. Amongst this group, however, nearly two-thirds advocated work sharing. Only a very small minority saw the problem as being political: “under the present system an employer can decide he has made enough profit and close down; there should be some planning at national level.” If Dr. Kahn’s book can give us a message, then surely it must be that mass sackings will be continued as long as the majority accept them as inevitable.