Britain: firefighters reject sell out
Workers Power Global, London: 6 April 2003

The Brighton Conference of the FBU rejected the 16 per cent deal that Andy Gilchrist and the union executive had recommended swallowing.

Despite a few last minute tweaks to the wording, this was essentially the same offer that has been on the table since the Bain report was published. In return for an offer slightly above inflation over three years, the union is expected to sign away its national bargaining rights and lay down while local managers destroy working conditions, jobs and safety across Britain.

In recommending acceptance of the deal Gilchrist turned a corner. He is convinced the union is not strong enough to beat the employers because the government has intervened. But he is not prepared to argue for the tactics that could turn the tide, and not prepared to acknowledge to the wider membership that his tactics have failed. That's why he tried to get the Executive and the delegate conference to take responsibility for the climbdown.

In recommending the deal, Gilchrist waved the white flag just one day before the strike action would have been at its most powerful: during a war. Even now, with no strike action, the government claims 20,000 troops are "tied down" and cannot be sent to the Gulf. That's how powerful the FBU action could have been. And that shows that Gilchrist - despite being one of the anti-war union leaders - backed off under political pressure from Prescott not to strike during the war.

The rejection of the deal was led by rank and file militants who have always been critical of Gilchrist's hesitant tactics. Winning the vast majority of conference delegates marked a turning point for them too. In the past, the top echelons of the FBU have run the union like a Stalinist club: those who criticise the leadership are marched out of offices, see their email accounts frozen and their union mobiles taken away.

Now there is the real basis for an alternative leadership in the union. Now the rank and file have shown their power, some of the left wing allies of Gilchrist in the leadership will have a counterweight to contend with: the will of the membership. So it is entirely possible to win back a majority on the Executive for renewed action. Even if the executive remains pro-surrender, the job is now to create a national strike committee that will take control of the dispute out of its hands.

Of course Prescott has two weapons at his disposal: he could ban the strikes on grounds of war, or impose a settlement under the 1946 Fire Services Act. This would be politically costly, hastening union disaffiliations and the membership leaks from Labour. Already prominent Labour Party supporting firefighters in Suffolk have left the party to set up a "Firefighters Against the Cuts Party".

However the war itself is a factor in the dispute. No one should pretend otherwise. The growing mood of discontent with the war will turn into open rebellion against New Labour if the war turns really bad.
At that point the FBU will be at its strongest. If Labour ends the war in disarray it will be looking for all means possible to save itself - killing off Foundation Hospitals and Tuition Fees will be two easy morsels to throw to the masses.

Settling with the FBU will be another. If at that point the union has simply settled for 16 per cent there will be no way back.

It is clear that Prescott used the threat to impose a settlement as a lever to get Gilchrist to recommend acceptance of the "final final" offer.

Gilchrist wrote to the members on 20 March, after Prescott threatened to impose a deal:
"The decision taken at the forthcoming Recall of Conference (15 April) on the latest offer must take account of today's statement.

I would hope the members would now appreciate the dilemma and difficulty the Executive Council faced when taking the decision [to recommend acceptance]"
Between now and 15 April the task is to build up support for renewed national action. It may be that the war will still be in progress then. If it is, Blair and Prescott will be in serious trouble. If not then Prescott's whole rationale for the imposed settlement will be exposed as the lame excuse it really is.

A rank and file led strike could rally support from across the Labour movement: even the TUC leaders could not stand by while a key part of the union movement saw a no-strike deal imposed on it. Time is short - but with hundreds of thousands on the streets against war in wartime, everything is possible.