AL WALKER'S REPORT of the current position in the Liverpool typists' strike completely leaves out the opinions of the strikers themselves.
Contrary to the agreement between Liverpool NALGO and the City Council, Rose Jones on behalf of the typists strike committee has stated 'You don't go on strike for arbitration'. (Socialist Worker, 24.10.81)
The three leading branch officials of Liverpool NALGO, Graham Burgess, Pete Cresswell and Alan Walker, have all recently referred to the possibility of an all-out strike by the branch leading to victory for the typists' claim.
Why then was this proposal never put to the branch, especially at the meeting on 21 October, simultaneously with the City Council's special meeting on the dispute?
At that time, such a victory was a real possibility.
Instead of this, the Branch officers, over the heads of the strikers, have allowed Sir Trevor Jones, leader of the City Council, to take the initiative from them with his proposal for a form of arbitation.
In so doing, they have abandoned the position of strength built up in the previous weeks of solidarity actions by thousands of NALGO branch members and Jones has almost succeeded in getting the typists back to work after four months — for nothing.
What kind of a step forward is this?
The real leaps forward in the course of the strike — in the organisation and militancy of the typists and the mass solidarity actions of others in their support, have all been ignored in Alan Walker's analysis and may have been lost in the outcome.
Is this what Socialist Challenge wants?
JOHN STRAUTHER, Liverpool NALGO Action Group