On 18 October 2002, the Fire Brigades Union announced that its members had voted by almost nine to one to take industrial action in pursuit of a pay claim, raising the prospect of the UK's first national fire service strikes for 25 years. This feature reviews the background to the dispute.
On 18 October 2002, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) announced that a ballot of around 50,000 firefighters had resulted in an 87.6% vote in favour of taking industrial action in support of a pay claim. The FBU’s executive council published plans for a a series of strikes between 29 October and 24 December. This involves two 48-hour stoppages followed by four eight-day stoppages. The union is seeking an annual salary for firefighters of GBP 30,000, representing an increase of almost 40% (and over 50% for control-room staff).
Fire service pay is negotiated between local authority employers and the FBU via a negotiating body - the National Joint Council (NJC) - covering 'wholetime' (full-time) and 'retained' (on-call) firefighters and control-room staff for the whole of the UK. Both the employers and the government have argued that substantial pay increases for firefighters would have to be linked to the 'modernisation' of working practices and conditions of employment.
The union’s case
The pay claim was tabled on 28 May 2002 when the FBU informed the fire service employers that it regarded current rates of pay, averaging around GBP 21,000 for a qualified firefighter, as unacceptable.
The union argues that current rates of pay are low, both in absolute terms - especially in parts of the country such as London with higher living costs - and relative to other workers. The present arrangements were established following a nine-week strike in 1977, when firefighters won a substantial pay rise and a formula linking subsequent pay awards to the upper-quartile earnings of skilled male manual workers in the private sector. The union claims that occupational and labour market changes have since reduced the worth of the formula:
- male manual workers now comprise only a quarter of the full-time workforce, compared with 40% when the formula was devised;
- focusing on manual workers ignores the higher average pay growth achieved by workers as a whole; and
- excluding women is also incongruous since female firefighters are now employed.
The union also points out that its members receive no shift, night or weekend working allowances, and have to work a 42-hour basic week compared with the standard 37 or 38 hours in industry.
The union argues that the jobs of firefighters and fire control operators have become more demanding due to technological changes and a new emphasis on fire prevention and community liaison. Social changes have also made the job more varied and complex. The use of central heating has reduced the number of chimney and house fires, but the build-up of road traffic has led to a much higher proportion of road-accident incidents. The FBU believes that all these factors demand that pay needs urgently to be addressed without the 'distraction' of modernisation.
The employers’ response
Following a series of meetings of a subcommittee of the NJC during summer 2002, the employers tabled the following offer at the full NJC on 2 September:
- a 4% interim pay rise and backdating of any increases agreed subsequently;
- in future, a formula that would link fire service pay with average settlements in the economy; and
- support for an independent inquiry into the future of the fire service.
Local authority employers agreed that the existing pay formula is no longer appropriate. Firefighters are now classified by the Office for National Statistics as 'associate professional and technical' employees, a category which includes higher-paid occupations such as midwives, police officers, engineering technicians and building inspectors. However the employers also argued that the best way to resolve the dispute is through a governmental inquiry, linking a fundamental review of pay to a 'modernisation agenda' reviewing working practices. This would involve changing the role of the service more towards community protection, developing closer collaboration with other emergency services, and introducing changes to shift, crewing and overtime systems in order to deploy staff more flexibly. The employers also considered that an inquiry was necessary in order to make a wider and more convincing case for higher pay relative to other public sector workers.
In the meantime, the employers said that without additional resources (they costed the claim at GBP 520 million per annum), the best offer that they could make was 4%. This figure represents their estimate of what a revised formula linked to outside settlements would have achieved in 2002.
The union rejected this offer. The Local Government Association, which represents fire service employers in England, responded by saying that the pay claim and strike threat were 'not only utterly unrealistic but also unreasonable', given that there were no recruitment or retention problems and many personnel were able to work preferred patterns, such as a two-day, two-night shift followed by four days off.
The government’s position
The government maintains that, legally and rightfully, pay negotiations are first a matter for the employers and union themselves. However, the Prime Minister has indicated that a 40% pay rise is unacceptable given the wider context of public sector pay, and could lead to a rise in interest rates. The union has accused the government of interference and intransigence. According to the FBU, employers were willing to negotiate a 15% increase in July 2002 to take pay to GBP 25,000, but were told by the government that funds were unavailable.
On 5 September 2002, the government announced the establishment of an independent review of the fire service, to be conducted by Professor Sir George Bain, former chair of the Low Pay Commission. Sir George has been asked to make recommendations on UK-wide arrangements for 'the future organisation and management of the fire service', including:
- 'the pay levels and conditions of service that are appropriate taking full account of the wider context of pay arrangements, levels and their affordability across the economy'; and
- 'the most appropriate arrangements for determining future pay and conditions of service.'
The independent review is expected to complete its work within three months and to submit its report in December 2002. If in the meantime there are important emerging recommendations, these will be passed to the parties.
The FBU has refused to participate in the inquiry.
Commentary
The unfolding dispute over fire service pay highlights the inevitable link between local government pay negotiations and central government funding decisions and plans, which the employers’ call for an inquiry in effect makes explicit. The employers acknowledge the validity of much of the union’s case for higher pay, albeit insisting on linking it to 'flexibility' as part of a package that might be spread over several years. However, they cannot do this without increased funding from central government. Paying for a costly settlement by significantly increasing local council taxes would be politically unacceptable for many local authorities, especially alongside cost-cutting efforts in other services. The government fears that a huge 'no strings' pay award for the fire service would send the wrong signal to other public-sector workers. The Labour Party was re-elected in 2001 on a platform of improving public services and has constantly emphasised the need for pay increases to be linked to reform. The FBU argues that there has already been a lot of change in the fire service and, though further reform might be necessary, present rates of pay fall far short of reflecting the challenging and skilled work of its members.
The looming confrontation would be the most serious industrial dispute since Labour’s election victory in 1997, and comes at a particularly difficult time. The public perception of firefighters is especially sympathetic around the anniversary of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the USA. The armed services, which would act as emergency cover for striking fire crews, are on standby for deployment against Iraq. Even without military conflict, the army has fewer than 900 antiquated firefighting vehicles at its disposal to replace the 3,000 modern civilian appliances of the fire service. Underground transport links such as the London Underground and Channel Tunnel could face closure as a result. The government has already ordered airports to review safety during walk-outs. The Retained Firefighters’ Union- which represents some part-time firefighters - is opposed to industrial action and believes that its members can cover over 90% of the country, particularly outside major urban centres, if the strikes go ahead.
Both the fire service employers and the government have deplored the fact that the the FBU is refusing to cooperate with the Bain review, and has decided to resort to industrial action ahead of the outcome of the review. Without an imaginative 11th-hour compromise, national strike action now appears inevitable. (J Arrowsmith, IRRU)