[page 10]
This school term opened to warnings of a *confrontation between local authorities and the Educational Institute of Scotland, Scotland's largest teaching union, from EIS president Archibald Armour.
Such outbursts of verbal militancy
ference in June at which the cuts in
condemned. Proposals for practical opposition were, however, restricted to a call for rigorous implementation of the recently agreed contract of ser- This states that no EIS member was to teach any class larger than 33. In theory this would prevent local councils economising on teaching staff as they could not force fewer teachers to take bigger classes without breaching the contract. start of the new term has shown this campaign up as a damo with the EIS abdicating leadership and leaving it to individual teachers to initiate complaints about any breaches in the contract. Many of those asked to take classes numbering over 33 are new to teaching. They are the most vulnerable to intimidation by headmasters.
What is more, even if the contract was rigorously enforced, nowhere near sufficient jobs would be made available for the 2000 teachers now jobless in Scotland. the contracy purpose of the The real "defend line is to prevent any recurrence of what happened in 1974, when 15.000 EIS members went out on unofficial strike for a ElS pay award. The EIS leadership wishes to avoid any similar challenge to its leadership.
The September 1976 EIS News spells this out when it says of the contract campaign that it "does not
mean a repetition of the old work to rule in which the rules were made by the Institute, but a campaign in which members are asked to work to the letter of the contract - and to keep within it". In other words: no strikes in support of the teacher training college occupations, or against the cuts; no refusal to cover for absent teachers (a means of winning new jobs successfully used in England) and - above no attempts to renegotiate the class sizes down sufficiently to give every teacher a job.
Through a skilfull mixture of militant demagogy and blackmail threats to the effect that any attempt to breach the contract would provoke a from the authorities, EIS leadership has succeeded in isolating the left in the union. The once influential Rank and File grouping has been whittled away to a rump largely consisting of members of the Interreflected in the 1976 Office bearer elections which showed a marked swing to the right.
But the left must take much of the blame for this situation. The simple appeals of Rank and File for "greater militancy" have proved insufficient to deal with the manouvres of the Institute's Secretary John Pollock. The left's basic failure has been its inability to see what lay behind the emergence of the Pollock leadership.
The expansion of education in Scotland during the late sixties created an enlarged layer of young teachers, newly
schools, worried about their career prospects as the expansion slowed down. At the same time the crisis of British capitalism brought about a marked decline in the status of the middle classes, of whom in Scotland the "Dominie" had been pre-eminent.
Pressure from such people, striving to defend their salary and position, forced the EIS to shift from being a professional institute representing nonteaching headmasters towards acting as a genuine white collar trade union. Regionalisation put further pressure on the EIS for a professional bargaining approach when faced with the giant Labour-controlled regions like Strathclyde the largest single employer in Scotland.
Crucial to an understanding of the emergence of the EIS as a professional trade union is the politics of the Pollock leadership. Many fulltimers, like organising secretary Fred Forrester, are long time Labour Party members. Pollock himself is a former Labour Party chairman in Scotland.
The Pollock leadership has consolidated itself by trading off concessions between its political base in the Labour Party machines of the big regions and its base inside EIS amongst newly promoted teachers in the secondary schools.
It is on this basis that Scottish teachers have avoided the redundancies suffered by their English counterparts. Instead the Scottish authorities have consciousiy placed the burden of the cuts on the shoulders of the less well organised janitorial and cleaning staffs.
In return for this soft-pedalling by his friends in the Labour Party, Pollock delivered his side of the bargain. Whilst giving "security" to those teachers who had gained promotions (a goal they had sought since the contract of service signed by the EIS gave the local authorities most of the prizes. Some regions were able to raise class sizes as a result of what Pollock termed the "marriage contract" between EIS and the convention of Scottish local authorities. All benefitted in one way or another.
[page 11]
But Pollock hasn't had everything his own way. In 1974 he lost control of those people who had given him a base in EIS when promoted teachers allied themselves to young teachers just entering the profession during the unofficial strikes. This golden opportunity for the left was thrown away. Rank and File failed to challenge Pollock on his weakest ground demands which could unite the whole membership for instance, a call for an index-linked salary increase monitored by the union itself. They limited themselves to an assault on differentials through a call for a single salary scale with a common maximum.
Pollock seized on this as a means to champion the interests of the promoted layers who had grown more conservative Following 1975 Houghton pay settlement which seemed to promise better salaries and strengthened careers structure. Those forces grouped around the single salary scale were routed at the December 1975 Emergency General Meeting of the EIS. Pollock presented his "contract campaign" in the absence of any alternative leadership which would challenge the miserable conditions enshrined in the contract. The mass of teachers accepted the contract apathetically.
Whether Pollock's mancouvres will continue to be as successful is open to doubt. Objective conditions are undermining Pollock's hold on the local authorities. As the IMF demands further massive cuts the regions come under pressure from the Labour govemment. Strathclyde maintains the fiction of the contract but makes its economies by directing teachers to supervise composite classes in more than one age group or subject at the same time.
The recent proposal by the secretary of state which enables him to veto any pay or conditions award, which was opposed by both EIS and COSLA, can
be seen as the first steps by central government to ensure that the cuts are not obstructed by the requirements of local labour politics Pollock's diplomacy with his Labour Party cronies will not prevent the coming redundancies, which will only be stopped by massive industrial action.
Pollock's other problems are subjective ones: the state of the left and the membership's political consciousness. EIS members have been through the experience of mass action organised independently of the union bureaucracy in democratically elected
action committees. Given the correct leadership, the powerful alliance of 1974 could be rebuilt.
Pollock won't, however, be swept aside by simplistic appeals for more militancy. Ultraleft calls to ignore the contract will only isolate militant schools. In the first place Pollock must be forced to really implement the contract. EIS must be made to initiate appeals against contract-breaking authorities, not leaving it in the hands of individuals. EIS must be made to stamp OUT composite classes, by industrial action if necessary.
At the same time, the weaknesses of the current contract must be revealed by a demand for renegotiation to lower class sizes sufficiently to give every teacher a job. This will only be won in opposition to the EIS leadership who are bitterly opposed to any idea of renegotiation which would only embarrass their friends in local government and put EIS on the spot over industrial action.
By rebuilding the alliance of promoted and unpromoted teachers in a fight to implement the contract, an alternative leadership to that of Pollock can be built to organise action to defeat the cuts rather than the smokescreen of words promised by Archibald Armour.
GEORGE KEREVAN