The developing situation in the Liverpool typists' and machine operators' strike has become the subject of strong disagreement between socialists who have been supporting the women's three month long fight with the City Council over improved pay grades and opportunities. Below JOHN STRAUTHER and AL WALKER explain the two different views that are held.
For the past two weeks, the employers and NALGO nationally have been wrangling over the form of arbitration to be set up to settle the typists' and manchine operators' strike. Talks are due to start locally to try and break the deadlock and the Liverpool NALGO branch has decided on further escalation.
Whatever form of arbitration is agreed, it will obviously be a compromise aimed at ending the 18 weeks old strike.
The fact the typists and machine operators are prepared to accept such a compromise has produced a number of articles in Socialist Worker in recent weeks alleging a sell-out. The Liverpool branch officers are accused of failing to organise the dispute, and the whole strategy of NALGO Left, of which three of the branch officers are founder members, has been brought into question.
To justify these criticisms, the views of the vast majority of typists and machine operators have been ignored and the extent of support for them hopelessly exaggerated.
For instance, Socialist Worker (24 October) reported that the typists and machine operators had been railroaded by branch officials into accepting arbitration. However, it was the typists and machine operators themselves, at a mass strike meeting in the ninth week of the strike who proposed arbitration as a solution.
This was then put forward by them as a possible alternative to a full branch meeting on 21 September and was approved with the full support of the Strike Committee.
At that time, some typists had returned to work and others were suffering extreme hardship. Also a mass meeting of 1,500 members of the branch had previously voted against escalation.
Faced with such difficulties, the strikers adopted the compromise formula of seeking 'an improved offer or arbitration.'
The arbitration service, ACAS, had already been brought in by the national employers and the national leadership of NALGO. Also, NALGO had said that the branch must accept arbitration if it were offered. Even at this stage, the branch regarded arbitration as a last resort and continued to press for an improved offer.
In more recent weeks, the situation has changed for the better and support for the typists has grown. The branch officers' proposals for escalation were finally agreed at the branch meeting on 21 October. Prior to this meeting the Strike Committee had been against proposing any escalation at all.
However, as a result of that meeting, there have been mass walk-outs across the branch, stoppages in several departments and there are now over 250 key groups of workers on indefinite strike. These include Housing Rent Cashiers, City Treasury Staff and groups of workers in the City Solicitors and Planning Departments.
This was reported in Socialist Worker (17 October) as branch officers 'failing to organise the dispute'.
This escalation was mainly in response to an attempt to smash the branch by laying off all members who refused to scab on the typists. The branch responded to this by bringing out these groups on indefinite strike.
Under the impetus of these 'dispersions' over a period of a few days, there was the likelihood that an all-out strike of the branch might develop. However, once the Authority realised that a firm stand was being taken, they retreated.
From then on, the prospect of an all-out strike receded. The majority of those on indefinite strike would only continue provided they were guaranteed strike pay equivalent to their full take home pay. If not, the overwhelming majority of those 'suspended' would have backed down.
These selective strikes have been sufficient to force the City Council to accept arbitration despite a considerable number of typists returning to work.
Realistically, this is not a strong enough position from which to reject the offer of arbitration and to continue the strike indefinitely in the hope of securing a clear-cut settlement.
John Holliday writing in Socialist Worker (31 October) says he doesn't wish to simply criticise but to argue a strategy to win the dispute' — and I accept that.
But I believe that what he puts forward is an ultra-left perspective which would leave the typists with nothing.
ALAN WALKER, Vice-Chairperson, Liverpool NALGO