Why is it that the National Union of Teachers is threatening to expel 30 teachers at Little Ilford School, Newham, from the union for taking 'no cover' action?
After all the NUT is actively encouraging teachers in Stockport, Oldham, Devon, Avon and elsewhere to operate Ine same sanc tion. And the NUT executive is committed by conference policy to Report fight all education cuts to ensure the u emooymen or an cuanled teachers. The operation of no cover' — 3 reusa to teach classes of colleagues absent from school - is one wav of doing this, as it is designed to encourage local educaTOR SUMONUES TO CHOIUY BEDEC teachers.
REASON The reason the NUT gives for disciplining the teachers is that their have not followed union procedure. union policy and the fact that 90 per cent of the school membership and 66 per cent of the local NUT Assocision voted for me sanctions would seem 'procedure"
At the root of the expulsion BETH STONE threats by the NUT bureaucracy is a wish not to promote a national tion, as this would threaten the Social Contract. But as the NUT membership is looking for some kind of response against the cuts, the NUT bureaucracy promotes local struggles - although only to the prent nartney co not inreaten the Social Contract.
This is one reason why the intervention of the NUT in areas such as Oldham and Stockport has not resulted in the defeat of education cuts, but in negonated cuis. at militant associations. in Londor particularly, are in a position to expose and threaten this sell out So the NUT leadership has to try to separate such militants from other teachers.
his explains why the essential activity of all socialist teachers is to ce eno meir promers and sisiers a Little Ilford. If Little Ilford 'goes then this will be a step back for the campaign against the cuts.
attacks the NUT leadership have launched on executive members Beth Stone and Dick North who have been condemned by the executive for taking part in an occupation of NUT headquarters, in support of LI Ilford teachers, last November While the occupation itself against the wisnes of the bille Ilford teachers, by members and supporters of the Socialist Workers Party played into the hands of the Nut bureaucrats, who are attempting to isolate the militants as mao untra-ients, me victimsation of Stone and North must be vigorously resisted. he crechon to the executive of these two SWP members was a gain for the left, DICK NORTH cover action is now the priority for all socialist teachers.
* Last week Camden Trades Council passed tne tonowing mo tion in support of Little Ilford:
histrates COUNG SEODOrE teachers in London who refuse to cover for colleagues who are aband if they are forced out it would be a defeat.
Resolutions in support of the Little Ifford teachers, against the victimisation of North and Stone and the calling for automatic sanc tion for those teachers taking no sene Tom work. we condemn une National Union of Teachers for of its members in London for condemn the Inner London Edument of Education and Science for OUTSUITS which have brought about the situation necesSHALINE THIS MOHOR The motion was passed 24-18 The overwhelming majority voting against were members of the Communist Party, one of whose members warned the trades council they would "rapped knuckles by the TUC for criticising the NUT inne interests or maintainin! good relations between the CP and ine Uc leadersmip, kea weekly pleased to record this example of how the CP fight the cuts.
group all class struggle militants -like the Engineering Voice or the Socialist Teachers Alliance Equally the conference should prepare a layer of militants to intervene in such events as the unions conference DuDic sector or the Wages Conference called by British Leyland Combine Committee. The conference should