cepted. If he desires to quit his job the reasons for his resignation must be passed upon by the shop committee of the workers. If the shop committee, upon investigation, finds the resignation unjustified the wage earner must remain at work, but he may appeal from the decision of the shop committee to his trade union. The penalty provided for disobedience of this rule is forfeiture of unemployed benefits for one week. (Sections 51, 52, and 53.)
There is nothing in the rules to prevent him after that from registering with the Bureau of Labor Distribution which must provide him with another job.
It is needless to deny that as an abstract proposition these rules imply a curtailment of "the liberty and the right of the individual," as Mr. Redfield puts it. To be sure, in capitalistic countries the wage earner is at liberty to quit work at pleasure. He does it, however, at the peril of being forced to starve, to beg, or to steal. On the contrary, in Soviet Russia every worker who is out of a job is entitled to draw from the public treasury his regular wages until the government supplies him with another job. Is it not reasonable for the government, under such circumstances, to have a say as to whether the worker should quit his employment? The government exercises this power of supervision by delegating it to the shop-mates of the worker. Could Mr. Redfield suggest any arrangement that would be more favorable to the worker?
Suppose on the other hand every worker were at liberty to quit his job at pleasure and draw
9
