23.06.2004

FBU: Leadership under pressure

Alan Fox analyses the recent events surrounding the FBU's decision to disaffiliate from the Labour Party.

As expected, last week's recall conference of the Fire Brigades Union voted to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. Gathering in Southport, delegates also defeated the executive council on the strategy to adopt in relation to the long-running dispute over pay and conditions.

It was clear after last month's adjourned conference in Bridlington that there was going to be a groundswell of opinion for disaffiliation. In order to counter this, general secretary Andy Gilchrist had done a volte face and adopted the very position he had previously so vehemently opposed: democratisation. The EC proposed that union funding to Labour should be reduced to £20,000 from £50,000 and that regions should have the right to propose support for non-Labour candidates. The EC itself would have the final say, however.

The concerns that people had about the EC's position were confirmed by what assistant general secretary Mick Fordham - deputising for brother Gilchrist (simultaneously on sick leave and watching the football in Portugal) - said in his speech. Formally the position of the EC motion was that the FBU would consider supporting other candidates apart from Labour, but Fordham made it quite clear that if the EC motion was carried the union would do absolutely nothing which would endanger affiliation to Labour. In practice no other candidates would be supported. In other words, if the EC motion was passed, the formal policy agreed would not be implemented.

This speech made it inevitable that disaffiliation would go through. The arguments of those who had called for a more rounded strategy were undermined by the fact that nobody believed that the EC would allow real democratisation to be implemented. The composite motion for disaffiliation, moved by Northern Ireland and seconded by Strathclyde, pulled in support from some of the big battalions. There was a separate disaffiliation motion from Berkshire, while Kent called for regional committees to be allowed to support other candidates. However, it spelled out that the union "wishes to remain affiliated" - a phrase which more or less ensured it would be defeated, given the mood of conference.

The decision was hardly surprising after the way New Labour attempted to crush the FBU in the 2002-03 pay dispute - when the question is put at branch level, the instinctive response of most members is to back disaffiliation. Merseyside and London both warned during the debate that branches, brigades and regions would have to start developing a clear political strategy. These and other delegates made the point that trade unionists and working class people in general do need a political voice.

A motion from London calling for a link-up with the RMT with the aim of working towards such an alternative was ruled out of order - on the technical grounds that a date it specified, relating to the aborted May conference, had already passed.

But the key choice was between the EC motion and the composite. As a result, first Berkshire and then (in view of Mick Fordham's speech) Kent withdrew in favour of the latter. The EC effectively forced anybody who backed democratisation - including its most consistent supporters, such as London - into the arms of the 'disaffiliate now' camp. It must be said, however, that there had been a growing mood amongst former democratisers to cut links with Labour anyway. The fear was that - in the absence of real, rather than cosmetic, change - there would have been a backlash from the rank and file, who just do not trust the current EC.

It was significant that the Scottish region organised a fringe meeting with Tommy Sheridan of the Scottish Socialist Party. Clearly Scotland will be discussing the approaches already made to them by the SSP. In England two union officials - Linda Smith from London and Adrian Clark from Cambridgeshire - stood as Respect candidates in the June 10 elections with the backing of their regional committees. Merseyside has agreed to send a delegate to the Liverpool-based conferences supported by, among others, ex-dockers, expelled Labour councillors and the Socialist Party.

London called from the rostrum for the FBU to link up with the RMT with a view to undertaking joint political work and perhaps formalising support for a pro-union parliamentary group. It is essential that the FBU engages in a genuine debate about the future of political representation. Left activists need to get together to avoid the possibility of fragmentation or even depoliticisation. Militants connected with the rank and file grouping, Grassroots FBU, intend to draw up a strategy document on this whole question.

The obvious drawback is that there is no already existing working class alternative. The SSP is evidently no answer even for the Scottish region, whose members know full well the benefits of operating on an all-Britain level, while Respect is hardly regarded as a hegemonic force in England and Wales. Nobody is interested in linking up with what might be seen as some kind of front for the Socialist Workers Party or any other sect.

Red Watch, the journal of the SWP's 'rank and file' grouping in the FBU, has been giving over a good deal of space to Respect. This has been criticised by some Grassroots comrades, who see such an approach as detrimental to the idea of building a genuine rank and file movement that can attract a range of political views.

Meanwhile, the long-running dispute over pay and conditions rumbles on. Before conference the EC had agreed with the employers a new form of words on 'night-time stand down' (the system whereby, up to now, firefighters have not been expected to perform routine duties at night). Of course the employers had been focusing on the existence of sleeping facilities in fire stations in their attempt to abolish lengthy rest breaks during the night, but the issue is linked to the whole question of fire cover, the watch system (with its element of workers' control) and jobs themselves.

Although the EC had agreed to a deal, despite opposition from the rank and file, it did not apply to bank holidays (when firefighters have also only been expected to undertake fire calls and related work). The form of words agreed by the EC was that normal, routine work would be undertaken at night if, according to management, it falls within a firefighter's "role map", comes under the fire authority's "risk management plan" and is deemed "appropriate". While this concession was opposed as a betrayal by militants, the EC considered it offered safeguards and proposed that the same wording be agreed for bank holidays too.

However, their appetites whetted by FBU concessions, management refused point blank. From now on, bank holidays (although they will still be paid at double time and attract a day in lieu) will be regarded as a completely normal day as far as work practices are concerned. This appears to have been the straw that broke the camel's back on the EC. Yet another climbdown was being demanded before the 3.5% pay increase, due last November, would be paid.
At conference, the EC proposed that there should be a further consultative ballot. If the members rejected the management demands, a second ballot recommending strike action would be held. A counterproposal from Nottinghamshire, supported by the left, made clear that not only the 3.5%, but the 4.2% due in July 2004 (the next stage in the settlement that followed the 2002-03 dispute) must be paid in full without further conditions. Since management is already indicating that the July rise will not be paid, the Notts proposal won the day.

The agreed motion calls for the ballot to take place on July 30, when the employers' attitude to the July payout will be out in the open, and insists that any deal reached by the EC must come before another recall conference for endorsement.

While, after the 2002-03 debacle, the willingness of members to undertake another round of industrial action is questionable, in recent weeks anger has been building up over the employers' refusal to honour the terms of the settlement. Members are very bitter that what they see as money owed since November has not been paid and that the next phase is likely to suffer the same fate.
This anger is, however, tempered by hostility to the union leadership, which virtually no-one trusts to lead a genuine campaign of action. 'Never again under Gilchrist' is a widespread attitude. It is a close call therefore whether, firstly, a ballot for renewed strike action can be won and, secondly, whether the membership would have the heart to carry it through.

A big issue dominating the conference was of course the well publicised absence of Gilchrist himself, who was in Portugal for Euro 2004 while on sick leave. Publicly everybody was wishing him well and defending him from the press's attacks, but privately even EC members and Gilchrist supporters were admitting that he is "finished". He is generally regarded as having "lost his grip".

It could be that brother Gilchrist's trip was actually leaked to the press by his 'Left Caucus' supporters on the EC. Gilchrist had made known his intention to stand for re-election in 2005, but many now view him as unelectable. However, having backed him up to the hilt on every issue, his 'comrades' would find it rather difficult to stand against him next year. Yet, from their point of view, there is a danger of a rank and file candidate, supported by the left, garnering real support - and that must be prevented at all costs.

It is therefore in the interests of the unofficial 'Left Caucus' majority to persuade Gilchrist to stand down. With him out of the way, a budding replacement could claim to have always had criticisms of the pay campaign, etc, while at the same time enjoying the backing of the existing EC machine. Undoubtedly then, Gilchrist will now be encouraged to go quietly - something that he may well already have been considering.

In view of all this, Gilchrist's threatened witch-hunt against the leaders of Grassroots FBU seems to have been put on hold, and could well be dropped altogether. Leaders of the rank and file grouping had been accused of unspecified "serious misconduct" and acting like a "union within a union".

With Gilchrist himself under sustained pressure and another strike ballot in the offing, serious divisions have arisen within the 'Left Caucus' over whether to proceed. At a time when loyalties have been severely strained, it is doubtful whether the membership could be won to give even passive backing to any witch-hunt.

What is more, feelers have been put out to the left by certain elements within the EC regarding which candidates it might be prepared to support next year. Clearly Grassroots FBU now carries some influence and is believed to be able to deliver a vote - the main reason why Gilchrist intended to target its leaders, of course. While regional committees can make recommendations as to which candidates to support, there is now serious doubt over whether this will be enough to bring home the goods. The usual channels for furthering the careers of bureaucrats are therefore under threat.

Out of the 500 or so delegates and visitors, just under 100 attended the Grassroots fringe meeting on June 14. Around 75 (including a dozen or so SWP comrades from outside) attended the June 15 Red Watch fringe, which enjoyed the official sponsorship of three regions, as well as the black and ethnic minority members group - quite a coup for the SWP.
However, what is needed is a single, united, genuine rank and file body, not one whose main purpose is to act as a conduit into the SWP sect. The Red Watch comrades should as a matter of urgency agree to resume discussions with Grassroots.