12.05.2004

Conference shambles

Fire Brigades Union delegates, having turned up in Bridlington for their four-day annual conference on May 11, voted to pack up and go home on the first day.

The decision to "suspend" conference was taken after delegates accepted an executive council emergency resolution on the settlement terms of the 2002-03 dispute. The resolution recommended "a ballot for industrial action to be decided by recall conference in June 2004 following a full consultation with the members". The sting in the tail was that "to allow this" consultation it was apparently necessary that this "parliament of the union", as one dissenting delegate put it, adjourn immediately. The flimsy argument offered by the leadership for this was that delegates needed "to get back to their members", as Kevin Brown of the general management committee said in seconding the resolution.

This is a victory for the leadership. Potentially, it was going to be an uncomfortable four days by the seaside for the Labour left general secretary, Andy Gilchrist. A potentially historic debate on the relationship with Labour was scheduled for the second day and now has to wait for a June recall conference - after the 'super Thursday' elections. There was a real chance that delegates would have voted for disaffiliation from Blair's party - a big embarrassment in the run-up to June 10. It was also more than possible that conference would have taken steps to call a halt to the EC's new witch-hunting move against the left, announced early in the month (see Weekly Worker May 6).

At the same time, the whole shambles underlines the scale of the political problems the union has inherited from the inconclusive and demoralising settlement to its 18-month pay dispute last year. After a drawn out campaign of partial action, Gilchrist recommended that delegates to the June 2003 conference sign up to a deal that had not even been finalised at that stage. A promised 16% pay increase was to be introduced in stages up to July 2004.

But, as Matt Wrack, London regional FBU officer, noted at the time, these were "dependent upon 'savings' being made - the audit commission will check that all the other conditions have been met before the increases are paid out. The negotiations and consultations on all the other aspects must also be completed. If anything breaks down, management could renege on the whole deal"(Weekly Worker June 19 2003).

And - predictably - "renege" is precisely what it has done. The national employers' organisation refused to honour the increase due to firefighters in November last year, despite the fact that the union has met all its obligations under the June 2003 agreement. However, given that this agreement actually represented a defeat of the union, it was inevitable that the management would return to the fight sooner rather than later to press home its advantage. The local authority employers have raised problems with the duties of crews on stand-down time between midnight and 7am, demanding greater 'flexibility' to meet "the needs of the 24-hour society".

Stand-down time represents an element of workers' control, so it is hardly surprising that Christina Jebb, Lib Dem chairwoman of the employers' association, comments that the bosses "cannot condone the retention of this as a national condition". Instead, "reasonable working patterns" should be "determined locally" with firefighters (The Guardian May 12). The stage is set for a confrontation, then. But how ready is the union for a fight? Politically, organisationally and in terms of morale, there are clearly huge problems.

The EC's emergency resolution was opposed by an alternative from London region. This was identically worded, but with the recommendation to suspend conference removed. The debate was instructive. It quickly became clear that a majority of delegates, from across the political spectrum, supported the EC recommendation to close business, accepting the justification it offered. FBU militants told each other how desperately urgent it was that - having adopted a resolution recommending industrial action - delegates return to their stations to begin the process of winning the rank and file to take action.

Several opponents of the EC proposal pointed out how unconvincing this was - politically and logistically. However, it did vividly underline the lack of confidence among conference participants that the membership - deeply demoralised by the squandered opportunities of the 18-month pay campaign - could be won to support further action. Delegate after delegate got to their feet with variations on the theme that the members "just won't strike again at the moment", as a delegate from Hampshire bluntly put it.

No doubt this is true - it was not disputed by the opponents of the EC resolution. Moving the London motion, ex-Socialist Party member Matt Wrack agreed that the union was "not in a brilliant position", that there was widespread "demoralisation" and a "lot of work" needed to be put in to "rewin the hearts and minds" of the membership.

However, by suspending its deliberations, conference would actually be dodging issues that were key to winning the rank and file. First, "the question of the Labour Party needs addressing," said comrade Wrack. "We've been pussy-footing around for too long" on an issue that was actually "central to winning hearts and minds".

Second, there were "grave concerns" over the witch-hunting investigation launched by the EC into the "serious misconduct" of a "hard left faction" - the rank and file Grassroots FBU, which stands accused of organising a "union within a union". Despite the pleas for "unity" from the EC, would the closure of conference be immediately followed by "dozens of union members and officials" being "taken out"?

Replying to the debate, Gilchrist promised there were "no tricks" here: the genuine motivation for the EC's proposal was to be "back with the members", to get a head start on the job of winning them for strike action. Just before the vote, London withdrew its motion, recognising that the overwhelming sentiment of conference was with the EC - presumably a dignified retreat was judged more tactically astute than a heavy defeat.

The closing of conference is a mistake, more likely to deepen demoralisation than boost fighting spirits. Apart from the apparatchiks, there was little actual enthusiasm for the EC's proposal to pack up and go home, but most delegates justified it to themselves using two equally flawed arguments.

First, that the union needed to "put internal battles aside" in order to take on the employers, as a Notts delegate put it. Second, "to stay here", said a Scottish comrade, and "discuss peripheral issues", while the rank and file were waiting for a lead would be "ludicrous".

It is important to emphasise again that these sort of arguments came from delegates from a range of political viewpoints. For example, it seemed pretty clear that had the Wednesday debate on relations with Labour actually happened, the mood was for disaffiliation. However, as one delegate from Strathclyde said, he would be "back in June" to support his region's motion to disaffiliate - but today he was going to support the EC's move to close business.

If there had been confidence amongst those assembled in Bridlington, reflecting a real fighting determination of the rank and file, Gilchrist's cynical bureaucratic ruse would have been brushed aside in the eagerness to get on with the battle. Given the absence of that confidence, delegates were certainly right to be cautious and to recognise the scale of the task they are facing.

But they were wrong to vote for a suspension. Issues such as the relationship with Labour or the democratic right to agitate and organise against the leadership's disastrous tactics are not "peripheral".

Indeed, as the 2002-2003 pay debacle proves, they could prove key to victory at the end of the day.