THE letter 'Dissent on NALGO' (26 July) contained inaccuracies and grossly sented the position of NALGO suporters in Liverpool. In the first place, the action programme referred to by John Strauther and put forward by NAL GO Action Group supporters called Only for a one-day national strike plus indefinite selective action.
The alternative put forward by NALGO Left supporters included a programme of escalating action. Not only was this carried unanimously at the meeting John refers to, but also at a subsequent general meeting of over 1,000 members (the NAG proposals received seven votes).
NALGO Left's policy was the same as that of Jack Meek (president NALGO) is a gross slander. For John Strauther's information, the National Local Government recommended that we accept the offer of 9.4 per cent.
Also, John is wrong when he says that NAU'S proposals were to NALGO's 15 per cent claim: In fact, NAG argued that the claim should be increased by 10 changed to £10) to take comparability into account. This opposed because it showed illusions in "comparabllity exercise' by the employers, and to resubmit the pay claim at that late stage only introduced divisions. The main fight was whether NALGO would accept 9.4 per cent or take action to win the full claim, which included demands for a £60 mini wage and a bo-nour week, as well as comparability. This hardly illustrates the need to NALGO Action Group.
What John Strauther leaves out is any explanation of why, when large rank and mobilising aerend their standards, NAG as a national force finds itself more and more on the sidelines compared with a few years previous letter by number of misrepreLeft several NALGO some rumour or gossip — and then it gets most of its facts wrong. For the This 21-23 September 1979