There is a curious scene at the end of the TV series when George Smiley visits the unmasked mole Bill Haydon in detention.
Haydon is about to be sent to Moscow as part of a deal with the Soviets, and he asks Smiley to look after a few routine matters for him. He writes a couple of cheques which he gives to Smiley for delivery to the recipients, a girlfriend and a boyfriend. He then requests Smiley to have mail sent on from his club, and to ensure the balance of his salary is forwarded to him in Moscow. Smiley agrees to this without batting an eyelid.
OK, this is fiction.
That said, this scene is taken verbatim from the book. The TV series follows the novel practically unchanged. Seasoned le Carré watchers will know of his background in the British Foreign Service and MI6, and his attention to detail in matters pertinent to that environment. He knows what he is talking about.
However, it seems strange to me that a spy who has totally betrayed his country for 20 years should be entitled to the balance of the money owed to him, and I am curious to confirm that such an arrangement has a firm basis in fact.
Does anyone know of any real life examples where an exposed double agent has been paid his outstanding salary despite compelling reasons to deny him the money?
At the very least, it can be argued that the employee has broken hs contract of employment.
His character is at least partially inspired by the Cambridge Five. And a quick google search found no reference anything like that, w.r.t. Philby, Burgess, Mcclean, etc. However they escaped of their own accord rather than being exchanged, could it have been part of the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” of a prisoner exchange.
I guess the difficulty with the question is that it’s such a relatively minor detail to find reported in such articles. Let’s hope there’s a former double agent on the boards who can tell us exactly what happens in circumstances like this.
Well, generally, labor laws are pretty strict on employees being entitled to be paid their salary for all the days they worked, even in cases where they were being fired for cause, like embezzlement. And all their accumulated sick leave, unused vacation, and even eventually, their pension. They earned that money, and are entitled to it.
Now if in addition to being fired, they were prosecuted in court for a crime, and fined or ordered to pay restitution, then the employer might be able to make a claim against that money as assets of the ex-employee. But an employer can’t just keep the money.
Presumably those same labor laws would apply to a secret agent, even a traitorous one.
I recall being struck by this too when I saw it on the DVD.
I am almost certain that this is just a poetic device. I find it hard to imagine that the British government would pay salary to an employee who was guilty of espionage for a foreign government, and I can’t imagine what recourse the employee would have in any case. This is NOT to say that, for example, they could seize Haydon’s house. You don’t forfeit all your property just because you committed a crime, no matter how heinous. But if you did not discharge your duties, I don’t think you’re entitled to the money. It would be as if you had been falsifying your timecards but not showing up to work. If you get caught, your employer doesn’t have to pay you for the time you didn’t work.
As I said, ithink this is a poetic device. It shows how gentlemanly these guys are to the very end. Smiley follows a certain code. And even against his worst enemy, he sticks to the code.
I’m guessing that the key here is that Hayden was going to be exchanged in a secret deal with the Soviets. He was never arrested, or charged with a crime, or dismissed for cause from the S.I.S. The Circle didn’t want any public knowledge of the existence of the mole or of the spy exchange. He was merely “transferred” to Russia, so to keep things above-board, he would still have to be paid his salary.
I really loved the feeling of oppression created by the movie. The paranoia, the watchfulness, I could almost feel it like a weight. It made you feel that there was almost no difference in the relentless carefulness, watchfulness, and lack of trust required whether you were working for British intelligence or living under Communist rule.
I presume he ‘resigned’ as it would attract least attention. As for any civil servant, there would be a contract of employment subject to the law like any other. There’s no suggestion he didn’t do his job, he just did ‘extra’ as well.
What I found fascinating was that no-one on either side did any actual spying, in the sense of producing useful intelligence. All they did was hunt for each others’ spies.
The Russian attache and double agent Polyakov was the one actually acquiring useful intelligence via the mole he managed ( and dangling his own phony info as bait for the Americans to potentially acquire even more ). But of course he was not a major character. All the action revolved around the world of counter-intelligence as the British maneuvered to uncover his intelligence source and Polyakov’s superiors maneuvered to thwart them.
