14.11.2002

Prepare for major struggle

Firefighters have begun their first strike in 25 years, but Blair is determined to make a stand on the Bain report and inflict a defeat. Fire Brigades Union militant and Socialist Alliance partisan Matt Wrack talked to Peter Manson about the aims and prospects of this strategically important strike

Were you surprised that the FBU executive council unanimously rejected the Bain recommendations and gave the go-ahead for strike action? Not at all. Once those recommendations were put in that form, there was no alternative but to reject Bain. His report was completely and utterly unacceptable. What Bain proposes is worse than what was offered in September. Then the offer was also four percent as an interim payment, but now the same thing is coming with a complete package of attacks on our conditions of service. The 11% that is being trumpeted is of course for two years: four percent in 2002 and a further seven percent in 2003. We know for certain that back in July the employers had definitely decided to make us an offer of 16% just for this year, but Prescott told them it wasn't on. What do the new attacks entail? They want to make changes to shifts and the watch system, allowing for greater flexibility - moving people around, depending on the time of day. There is also the demand that we lift the long-standing ban on pre-arranged overtime, and a proposal for a two-tier entry system, with graduates recruited straight to management rather than people being promoted from our ranks. It seemed to me that the executive, having called off previous strike days, was shaping up for a compromise. Are there divisions on the EC over this? I think the executive council was expecting a new offer when they met the employers the day before this week's 48-hour strike. If they had got one, it may be that they would have put it to the membership. That wouldn't have gone down well. I know in London the members would only accept the full claim or something very close. The problem for the employers is that by following Bain they took away any possibility of a settlement. The government laid down the parameters for Bain and forced the employers to make an offer on that basis. As for divisions, I would say there are minor ones on the executive, but it is more a case of divisions between the executive and the regions. Too many strikes were called off, yet there was no offer on the table. All the FBU press releases stated that we were making 'significant progress', but the members felt the strikes should have gone ahead. You could say the employers pulled a fast one on us or perhaps the EC was naive. They claimed that progress was being made in the negotiations, but it turns out the offer we have is worse than what was put on the table in September. The initiative for the FBU's claim actually came from the leadership itself, didn't it? There had been resolutions on pay at conference for a few years, but until this year they were resisted. All activists had been brought up to respect the pay formula that was won through our last strike 25 years ago, but of course recently that meant we were losing ground. There were a number of factors behind the decision to go for the claim. Maybe there was the feeling that 'modernisation' was bound to come anyway, so we might as well try and get something out of it. There is a mish-mash of political views on the EC. Andy Gilchrist himself used to be close to the Socialist Workers Party, as are a couple of others. There are also left Labour people. In any case the executive played a progressive role in giving voice to the feelings below that the old formula was now out of date and we needed a big rise. But now the genie is out of the bottle. How did the cancellation of the first strikes affect morale? In fact the effect has been mixed. Undoubtedly it took the wind out of our sails and we lost momentum. Members had been keyed up and then felt deflated. But, on the other hand, the fact that Bain is far worse than expected means that nobody can argue any more that we should still be talking. People now feel angry and ready to fight. Do you think the offer was made deliberately unacceptable as a provocation? Well, it's almost like the government is treating us like Blair's miners. As though they want to deal with us like Thatcher took on the miners. But that would require a massive mobilisation on the government's part, and it would could cause all sorts of splits within the Labour Party. They wouldn't be able to maintain relations with the unions at all. But is Andy Gilchrist an Arthur Scargill? Let me say this: I don't know if our executive is prepared for the scale of struggle that might be needed. I think they were expecting something to take back to the membership. Either you prepare for a battle or you put your hopes in negotiations. They told us the talks were going well, but now we are faced with a massive struggle. The trouble is, they haven't been preparing the membership for that. Yet, from the reactions I have heard, people are bitter and ready to fight. I don't expect the members to back down. Bain has stiffened their resolve and hardened their attitude. Everyone, including even chief fire officers, is talking about a significant pay increase for firefighters, but we have been offered nothing whatsoever in that direction. They want to take things away from us in fact. What steps do the rank and file need to take now? We need to set up strike committees - they are being encouraged by the leadership. We have to picket the fire stations and organise rotas. We must build links with other workplaces. Everybody must be involved in all these activities, and not get left sitting at home. The organisation for this is fairly well developed already. As for the wider movement, other unions should consider the question of safety. Where there is inadequate cover, they should consider what they can do - Bob Crow and the RMT have raised the issue. We need trade union and class solidarity - the setting up of local support committees and so on. On a national level we need to put pressure on the union leaders and expose the role of the government. And of course money will be an issue if the dispute drags on. The government is talking very hard-line, but Blair is badly mistaken if he thinks we'll crumble - he is no Thatcher. How does the strike affect the campaign to democratise the political funds? The London regional committee are recommending that the next conference adopts a resolution on the political fund that takes into account current developments. We need to pose the question of democratisation in the light of the attacks on us made by Prescott and Blair. Actually this has been an issue in branch meetings for the last couple of months. People are saying, why should we continue paying our money to this government? There has been an increase in individual requests to opt out of paying the political fund. I am discouraging that, of course, but you can see the danger of trying to defend the status quo, as the leadership wants. In London a lot of people are now aware of the debate on the political fund. We need to take it into the branches elsewhere during the course of the strikes. It is becoming clearer that we are striking against the government and that we need political as well as trade union opposition to New Labour.