The history of strike action stretches beyond
the First World War, often linked to economic fluxes and changing
conditions, the question on many journalist minds and a subject
many academics are likely to ask in years to come is how and
why does history seem to be repeating itself? What I mean
is if you cast your minds back 25 years to the winter of 1977-78,
before Thatcher, and before the Conservatives changed the
role of Trade Unions. I'm referring to the first official
national fire strike, the "Winter of Discontent".
There are noticeable similarities between the two incidences
moreover both disputes were largely over pay, both took place
during the winter months and both whilst Labour was in power.
Although this essay is not really concerned with similarities
it's important to explore the past history in some detail,
before we can gage a real understanding of the current firefighter
strikes, it's impact and a possible resolution, and question
whether history really does repeat itself?
In 1977, the Fire Brigades Unions (FBU)1 had never taken
strike action; their leaders were right wing (conservative)
and at that time opposed to strike over pay2. Labour was elected
in 1974 on the back of the National Miners Strike, first led
by Harold Wilson and then by James Callaghan. During 1977
the firefighters had no support from any left or right wing
officials on the TUC general council and consequently the
odds were stacked against them. However there also was an
overwhelming vote for strike action. As a result of proletarian
support for the strike there was a tidal wave of collections
across the country in defence of the firefighters campaign.
The right wing officials of the FBU and the TUC soon secured
a return to work for the firefighters3-4.
From this it's clear that the role of the government is arguably
one of great influence and this is supported by Blyton and
Turnball (1998)5 who stated "The influence of the modern
state permeates every aspect of people's working and non-working
lives", and I'd suggest that this remains to be the case
today as we explore this issue in more depth. The question
is however what leads to government intervention in disputes,
particularly in publicly funded organisations where the state
is supposed to have control? Gospel and Palmer (1993)6 suggest
that government intervention depends on 3 factors; efficiency
of the market, individuals in the dispute and the bargaining
power of each party. In the late 70's the economy was unstable
and union power was falling, but these conditions are not
apparent today and asks how did the firefighter dispute arise
in the first place?
The UK's recent strike pattern can be divided into three
broad periods (Salamon)7. The 1950's and 1960's, largely associated
with the organisation not the industry and more often than
not referred to as the "shop floor revolt". The
second period was during the 1970's, characterised largely
by increased government intervention, this period is known
as "formal challenge" where disputes were more widespread;
often with a political element. The most recent period was
during the 1980's and 1990's; associated with significant
changes in the economic and political environment, decline
in manufacturing, privatisation of public sector industries,
during which unemployment was high and union membership declining.
Now a new century, new labour government, to answer the above
question, in light of recent public sector strikes it would
seem that it has become fashionable to strike once again.
Firefighters striking today believe that they are not getting
the wages they deserve, and whilst pay is linked to number
of years of service it fails to account for geographic discrepancies8-12.
It should also be noted that the strikes today are not just
over pay13. This is probably because Labour has admitted that
a review of the pay system is needed and instead argues that
unless the firefighters agree to modernisation, a pay rise
of no more than 4% will be awarded. It's not been a simple
process and this is evident in the fact that this dispute
is far from resolved and it is likely that the strikes will
continue into the New Year14.
From my own analysis it is clear that the government appear
to be deepening the dispute by not being sympathetic with
firefighters, calling them "criminals and greedy"15.
On the other hand the FBU is guilty, as they are not making
any attempt to be reasonable and seem to disregard any proposals
the government suggests. For instance in order to address
the number of ethnic minorities and women in the fire service
the government is urging the fire service to recruit and encourage
larger numbers, but the FBU argue that this will mean building
separate showers and other facilities13. There are other issues
to do with training and flexible working that the FBU are
simply ignoring and from this it is clear that without some
kind of third party intervention no resolution will be found.
This is because Labour clearly believes that a strike is
unreasonable and much of what the FBU is demanding is unobtainable19-20.
Whilst the conservatives feel that labour is all talk and
no action, and blame John Prescott for failing to set up an
early pay and conditions review, also recognise that the firefighters
should be realistic and accept the offer made by the employers
as an interim measure16-18. The only political party that
are actively supporting the firefighters is the Socialist
Party and suggest that the reason why this issue is so prominent
is because of Blair's apparent war on the public services
(hence all of the recent strike activity)3. The Employers
feel that whilst there is a case for improving firefighters
pay, the only way the FBU will secure this is through the
continual improvement and modernisation of the fire service.
No party is showing signs of debility; without some kind of
intervention this dispute has the potential to become extremely
protracted and in that respect mirrors the formal challenge
period identified by Salamon7 and leads to the conclusion
that history is in fact repeating itself.
Even the position paper conducted by Sir George Bain, published
on the 11th of November has had little effect. It considered
the changing role and responsibilities of the fire service.
Including pay levels, conditions of service, and the mechanism
for future pay negotiations. In other words, recommends a
pay increase of 11% over the next two years subject to essential
and overdue modernisation, based on the premise that no such
strike action will be taken again21. But in the middle of
December, the dispute is still unresolved the four-stand approach
suggested has had little effect.
This led to the involvement of Advisory, Conciliation and
Arbitration Service (ACAS)22, with the objective to address
the current positions of the parties and to explore the means
and mechanisms for a possible way forward. So far ACAS has
managed to postpone the intended strike that was due to take
place from the 16th for 8 days in order to allow talks and
negotiations between the parties to continue23. The trouble
is disputes and strikes usually arise as a result of 1 of
3 factors identified by Knowles (Salamon, p428)7: Basic issues
(wages and hours of work) solidarity issues (recognition)
and frictional issues (working arrangements). Arguably the
firefighters are arguing for basic issues and the government
is seeking frictional improvements, and this is why no one
is really clear who instigated the strikes in the first place.
Hugo Young24 believes the actions of the FBU represent a political
attempt to re-establish trade union power, and in that respect
it can be suggested that the FBU is seeking solidarity. The
strike has evolved, it's no longer about pay, it's a political
and economical battle, it's about the power as well. Consequently
I would argue that the origins of this strike go all the way
back to when Blair was first in power, as this is the first
labour government where unions do not have power and trade
unions have virtually been written out, and this in itself
represents a fairly unassailable explanation as to how and
why the strikes are seemingly insurmountable.
So it still isn't clear when or how the firefighter dispute
will be resolved. What is abundantly clear though is Labour
is facing increasing pressure from workers who are fed up
with poverty pay. This combined with the increase in cost
of living has led to a greater willingness for workers to
take action. Labour has attacked firefighters for being part
of what Blair called the "comfortably off the two thirds
of society"25, whose wage demands would be at the detriments
of the other third. This is not 1978 when Labour had nothing
like the strength to fend off a winter of discontent and it's
certainly not 1984, when Thatcher engineered her confrontation
with Arthur Scargill. I'd suggest the only politics are coming
from the FBU. They are the ones making excessive claims, using
the moral work of firefighters as means to insert enough pressure
to get noticed by the public and press. Some sources have
quoted Gilchrist as being the new Scargill but whether this
dispute really escalates to that level of potency and animosity
still remains to be seen26. The simple fact is that the firefighters
are no more valuable than any other public service workers
and the only way this issue will be resolved is by coming
up with a solution that everyone will be happy with. One way
to achieve is by bringing forward the publication of the Bain
report to allow both sides to negotiate an end to the dispute,
as it may ensure that any talks are not needlessly disrupted
by the final publication, as well as allowing all the facts
to be on the table during negotiations. The FBU has a choice
either accept the 4% or opt for the 16% rise which includes
the blue print for the much needed modernisation as proposed
by the Bain review, basically it's in the hands of the FBU
and if the opinions given above are anything to go by, these
strikes could continue well into the new year.
REFERENCES
1. Fire Brigades Union. URL: http://www.fbu.org.uk
[December 2002]
2. History of the FBU. URL: http://www.fbu.org.uk/ffgtr/pdfarch/dec00/12004_6.pdf
[December 2002]
16. The Conservative Party. Labour to Blame for strike
chaos URL:
http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=45755&typ
[November 2002]
17. The Conservative Party. Prescott in the hotseat
over firefighters strike URL:
http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=42174&typ
[November 2002]
18. The Conservative Party. Call off fire strike,
says David Davis URL:
http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=44417&typ
[November 2002]
19. The Labour Government. Statement on Fire dispute
URL:
http://www.labour.org.uk/print.php?page_name=jpfirestatement
[November 15 2002]
20. The Labour Government. 'Talk, don't walk' - John
Prescott to the firefighters URL:
http://www.labour.org.uk/print.php?page_name=jpfirestatement2
[November 15 2002]
21. Independent Review of the Fire Service URL:
http://www.irfs.org.uk/news/111102.htm
22. Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
(ACAS) URL:
http://www.acas.org.uk/news/news_28.html
23. Yahoo News. Fire Talks At ACAS URL:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021205/140/dg3sr.html [December
12 2002]
24. Young, H. (2002) "Why we must not give the
firefighters what they want." The Guardian, 26 November,
P17
25. Socialist Review Page - The alternative dossier.
"Anger into action" URL:
http://www.swp.org.uk/sr/268/SR2.HTM [December 16 2002]
26. BBC News / Politics / Digging in for the long
haul URL:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/UK_politics/2532761.stm [December
19 20