[MY, my, what an overreaction to my report…]

Scan page 12

MY, my, what an overreaction to my report on the typists' strike. Let me add a few points to put Pete Cresswell's mind at ease.

1. The article did not criticise the Branch officials. It merely registered surprise at their recommendation to accept arbitration,atter playing such a healthy role in fighting the union for more strike pay earlier in the dispute.

I did however strongly criticise the National Officers who forced acceptance of arbitration by threats to withdraw financial support. I would of course still stand by that criticism.

2. Pete Cresswell seems to think that 1 personally concocted the report. On the contrary, 1 reported almost word for word what had been said to me by striking typists on the picket line and at a Women's Fightback meeting to which we invited a speaker.

Perhaps every time you say 'Sue Erswell said' in your Let Liverpool sill site.

Lywist Perhaps then you would not write such a letter.

It is they whom you are criticising, not me. This report may have 'disappointed' you, but all the women I spoke to are extremely disappointed at going to arbitration after sacrificing SO much for five months.

In justification of the National Officers' acceptace of arbitration, you quote trom a motion passed by the typists themselves, saying, "Let him prove his case by coming to negotiation or arbitration"

The fact that the motion gives a choice between negotiation and arbitration implies a lack of understanding of the great difference between the two. You have the experience, however, to know the differences.

Negotiations means that you continue to argue your case from a position of strength by striking, picketing, blacking, etc, and remain free to reject any unacceptable offer made to you.

Arbitration means losing all your strength by returning to normal working and being bound to accept the offer made at the end whether it is reasonable or not. You could spend 12 months at arbitration and gain nothing, and the chances of getting a demoralised workforce back out on strike months later are virtually zero.

It is the duty of socialists in leadership not to tail end the confusion and inexperience of the working class, but clarify and present a perspective for victory, it necessary against the trade union leaders (whether 'official' or lay).

3. You seem upset that l did not contact you. Are you, and not the typists themselves, the only ones allowed to comment?

You: were interviewed the previous week, I believe. by one of our supporters, and a report was sent in. As you see, Socialist Organiser, unlike the Echo, allows you a reply even longer than the original report if you wish.

Lastly, you say you have been subjected to a sectarian attack. Oh come on now!

Your name was not even mentioned. After all, why should it be? I was talking on this occasion to the strikers themselves, not you. And it you think the word 'sectarian' applies, then I'm afraid I must suggest you don't actually know what the word means.

Please accept this reply in the spirit it is intended. I don't feel a need to attack you personally as you leel the need to attack me.

I don't retract any of the original report. How could 1 when it is mostly not me speaking! But I am grateful for you expanding how you see the 'rationale' for going to arbitration.

That is obviously a useful contribution to our understanding of one point of view on the dispute, but it does not mean we have to agree.

SUE Writeback to Socialist Organiser 28, Middle Lane London N8