Fantasy Football and Industrial Relations
I remembered writing something about the firefighters dispute - in 2002/03 - as I posted James Undy's article from the Independent earlier today.
And would you believe I managed to find the piece.
So here's what I had to say - all those years ago - about Fantasy Football and Industrial Relations.
Firefighters Dispute
"As fire fighters prepare to strike for the first time since 1977, people will gradually begin to focus on the justice of their claim, and how it’s being pursued. A whopping 40% rise in a single year, with no strings attached, is the industrial relations equivalent of fantasy football. Yet both sides are hurtling towards a strike that will not only cause enormous damage, but is bound to cost many lives.
Fire brigades are an emergency service, a life and limb service of last resort, but they are not alone in the public sector: doctors and nurses are the best known example; ambulance staff, paramedics and many others besides literally have people’s lives in their hands, should they completely withdraw their labour.
But they don’t, thankfully. Because their job is to respond to people in distress, to care for the weak and vulnerable and to save lives: everything else is secondary. This basic, unshakeable, unwritten principle has underpinned every public sector strike for the past twenty years.
When nurses finally lost patience and went on strike for the first time in the UK in 1988 emergency cover was never withdrawn: patients continued to be looked after and cared for in wards, casualty departments and operating theatres. Small groups of nurses took direct action and were supported by colleagues towards the start and end of the working day, cheered to the echo by the public, patients and their relatives.
Long suffering nurses had as good a case as any ever made for a substantial pay rise after years of inaction by successive governments. The point being that fire fighters are not unique in having a real grievance over pay, but their strongest weapon, public support, will evaporate when a strike begins to bite because the casualties are unsustainable.
Even at the height of the famous ambulance workers dispute in 1989, emergency cover was maintained on a ‘blue light’ basis. Routine transport jobs came to an abrupt halt, yet patients and relatives not only put up with the inconvenience, they actively supported ambulance crews in their fight for recognition of their professional skills. Local fighting funds soon overflowed with public donations.
Hotheads within the trade unions (NUPE, COHSE and GMB at the time) argued fiercely against the official line of maintaining emergency cover at all costs, even under severe provocation from senior management. But humanity and common sense prevailed in the end and the ambulance workers won a famous victory against a hostile government.
The present strike is a world away from 1977 when Marxist notions of class war dominated the trade unions. Times have changed: fire fighters are not under the jackboot of an oppressive government nor are they being attacked by greedy, rapacious employers; jobs are not at risk nor are there huge issues of principle at stake. Put simply, a strike is not justified as a weapon of last resort because other solutions are available, eminently sensible and practical proposals that put public safety first.
Fire fighters have been offered a 4% increase for 2002-2003, better than the 3.5% agreed for most other public sector workers, but a long way behind the 23.5% paid to Scotland’s teachers over three years. The FBU (Fire Brigades Union) is demanding 40% and members will be balloted on a complete shut down of an irreplaceable emergency service.
But the employers have also offered to establish an independent pay review body, with government support, to consider the case for a better longer-term deal that rewards fire fighters for their modern, professional skills. Just as ambulance workers moved towards a more highly skilled paramedic service, professionally trained and properly rewarded, fire fighters are determined to do the same. Good luck to them, but don’t use people’s lives as part of the power play!
The underlying problem is that fire fighters feel their pay levels should reflect the dangers and importance of the job, rather than the caricature of getting cats out of tall trees. This powerful argument is the reason the employers have signalled an independent review as the way to break the deadlock. The employers have also indicated their willingness to backdate and fully implement any improved offer to the original settlement date.
Against such a favourable background, FBU leaders need their heads examined if they feel negotiators can’t deliver a much better deal for union members. Choosing war-war instead of jaw-jaw will suggest the dispute is about politics, not industrial relations.
If the fire fighters opt for strike action, there will be no easy way back. Disruption to people’s lives and the economy will be enormous, not least because attitudes to public safety have also changed fundamentally since 1977. Disasters at Kings Cross, Hatfield and Clapham Common provide all the evidence needed to confirm that clapped out Green Goddesses are not up to the job of substituting for a modern emergency service.
Bob Crow, of the Rail Maritime and Transport union (RMT), has a genuine point about the safety of his own members if the fire fighters’ go on strike. Unless the two sides reach agreement in the coming weeks, the RMT is threatening to shut down the London Underground and entire rail network.
What will be closed next: the buses, airports and public highways? Taking such irresistible logic to its proper conclusion, there is a plausible argument for shutting the whole country down on safety grounds, but at this point the fire fighters’ case finally begins to unravel and fall apart.
Modern public services need to be in place when people most need them: putting up with inconvenience is one thing; standing aside while victims of an appalling tragedy need help is not the way for responsible trade unions to behave in the 21st century.
If the FBU walks away from the principle of maintaining emergency cover, the government response may well revisit the right to strike in essential services. Workers deserve inalienable rights, but any union leader worth their salt knows that, in some cases, important rights can only be exercised with restraint. The obvious way forward is some form of compulsory arbitration since the real victims of the strike will be ordinary, everyday people: a friend’s mother or father, a colleague’s son or daughter - not employers across the negotiating table.
If the FBU and its members faced a life and death struggle in the current dispute, their tactics might be understandable. As things stand, the union seems prepared to risk lives in an important, yet conventional disagreement over pay.
Nurses, doctors and ambulance workers don’t abandon people in their hour of need; our fire fighters should learn from that example."
And would you believe I managed to find the piece.
So here's what I had to say - all those years ago - about Fantasy Football and Industrial Relations.
Firefighters Dispute
"As fire fighters prepare to strike for the first time since 1977, people will gradually begin to focus on the justice of their claim, and how it’s being pursued. A whopping 40% rise in a single year, with no strings attached, is the industrial relations equivalent of fantasy football. Yet both sides are hurtling towards a strike that will not only cause enormous damage, but is bound to cost many lives.
Fire brigades are an emergency service, a life and limb service of last resort, but they are not alone in the public sector: doctors and nurses are the best known example; ambulance staff, paramedics and many others besides literally have people’s lives in their hands, should they completely withdraw their labour.
But they don’t, thankfully. Because their job is to respond to people in distress, to care for the weak and vulnerable and to save lives: everything else is secondary. This basic, unshakeable, unwritten principle has underpinned every public sector strike for the past twenty years.
When nurses finally lost patience and went on strike for the first time in the UK in 1988 emergency cover was never withdrawn: patients continued to be looked after and cared for in wards, casualty departments and operating theatres. Small groups of nurses took direct action and were supported by colleagues towards the start and end of the working day, cheered to the echo by the public, patients and their relatives.
Long suffering nurses had as good a case as any ever made for a substantial pay rise after years of inaction by successive governments. The point being that fire fighters are not unique in having a real grievance over pay, but their strongest weapon, public support, will evaporate when a strike begins to bite because the casualties are unsustainable.
Even at the height of the famous ambulance workers dispute in 1989, emergency cover was maintained on a ‘blue light’ basis. Routine transport jobs came to an abrupt halt, yet patients and relatives not only put up with the inconvenience, they actively supported ambulance crews in their fight for recognition of their professional skills. Local fighting funds soon overflowed with public donations.
Hotheads within the trade unions (NUPE, COHSE and GMB at the time) argued fiercely against the official line of maintaining emergency cover at all costs, even under severe provocation from senior management. But humanity and common sense prevailed in the end and the ambulance workers won a famous victory against a hostile government.
The present strike is a world away from 1977 when Marxist notions of class war dominated the trade unions. Times have changed: fire fighters are not under the jackboot of an oppressive government nor are they being attacked by greedy, rapacious employers; jobs are not at risk nor are there huge issues of principle at stake. Put simply, a strike is not justified as a weapon of last resort because other solutions are available, eminently sensible and practical proposals that put public safety first.
Fire fighters have been offered a 4% increase for 2002-2003, better than the 3.5% agreed for most other public sector workers, but a long way behind the 23.5% paid to Scotland’s teachers over three years. The FBU (Fire Brigades Union) is demanding 40% and members will be balloted on a complete shut down of an irreplaceable emergency service.
But the employers have also offered to establish an independent pay review body, with government support, to consider the case for a better longer-term deal that rewards fire fighters for their modern, professional skills. Just as ambulance workers moved towards a more highly skilled paramedic service, professionally trained and properly rewarded, fire fighters are determined to do the same. Good luck to them, but don’t use people’s lives as part of the power play!
The underlying problem is that fire fighters feel their pay levels should reflect the dangers and importance of the job, rather than the caricature of getting cats out of tall trees. This powerful argument is the reason the employers have signalled an independent review as the way to break the deadlock. The employers have also indicated their willingness to backdate and fully implement any improved offer to the original settlement date.
Against such a favourable background, FBU leaders need their heads examined if they feel negotiators can’t deliver a much better deal for union members. Choosing war-war instead of jaw-jaw will suggest the dispute is about politics, not industrial relations.
If the fire fighters opt for strike action, there will be no easy way back. Disruption to people’s lives and the economy will be enormous, not least because attitudes to public safety have also changed fundamentally since 1977. Disasters at Kings Cross, Hatfield and Clapham Common provide all the evidence needed to confirm that clapped out Green Goddesses are not up to the job of substituting for a modern emergency service.
Bob Crow, of the Rail Maritime and Transport union (RMT), has a genuine point about the safety of his own members if the fire fighters’ go on strike. Unless the two sides reach agreement in the coming weeks, the RMT is threatening to shut down the London Underground and entire rail network.
What will be closed next: the buses, airports and public highways? Taking such irresistible logic to its proper conclusion, there is a plausible argument for shutting the whole country down on safety grounds, but at this point the fire fighters’ case finally begins to unravel and fall apart.
Modern public services need to be in place when people most need them: putting up with inconvenience is one thing; standing aside while victims of an appalling tragedy need help is not the way for responsible trade unions to behave in the 21st century.
If the FBU walks away from the principle of maintaining emergency cover, the government response may well revisit the right to strike in essential services. Workers deserve inalienable rights, but any union leader worth their salt knows that, in some cases, important rights can only be exercised with restraint. The obvious way forward is some form of compulsory arbitration since the real victims of the strike will be ordinary, everyday people: a friend’s mother or father, a colleague’s son or daughter - not employers across the negotiating table.
If the FBU and its members faced a life and death struggle in the current dispute, their tactics might be understandable. As things stand, the union seems prepared to risk lives in an important, yet conventional disagreement over pay.
Nurses, doctors and ambulance workers don’t abandon people in their hour of need; our fire fighters should learn from that example."
