Employee Relation - British Fire Fighters - Essay Example

Introduction Industrial disputes are common in any nation and in any industry but public sector industrial relations can be differentiated from private sector industrial relations. The state as the employer has the power to initiate legislation and to take action that may an immediate impact on employee relations (Corby, 2005). The state takes action based on macroeconomic factors and on grounds of public interest. However, the government is subject to constraints by the Parliament and the electorate. Hence the government has to take very cautious steps in dealing with industrial disputes. This paper discusses the employee relations in a public sector organization – the UK Firefighters. The case of the British fire fighters The UK Firefighters has always been associated with the heroism and skills of largely working class masculinity but the firefighters’ dispute gave it a different dimension – conflict and dispute of class and gender (Kaplan, 2000). This was one of the longest and the most serious industrial disputes in British history (Dinan, Ford, McConnell & Pyper, 2006). While the reasons for the dispute were many, when it precipitated a public safety emergency, the government was forced to deploy emergency plans. This was the first national strike by firefighters in 25 years and had several complex themes and issues intertwined together. The dispute had started in May 2002 when the Fire Brigades Union lodged a 40% pay claim which was rejected by the local authority employers. The local authorities were prepared to offer 4% pay increase and also link future increases to national pay deals. By September when the government felt that the negotiations were not heading anywhere, it sought an independent review. Based on the recommendations of the Bain Report, the government then added 7% as modernization package and also announced certain other benefits in working patterns and local pay additions. The FBU did not agree to any of these recommendations and first initiated a 48-hour strike in November followed by an eight-day strike from November 22. The FBU staged a series of walk-outs and pickets across Britain, suspending the national cover fire and forcing army ‘green goddesses’ to step in (Edwards, 2007). The two main issues at the heart of the dispute were – pay increase to be comparable or at par with other public services and the government led agenda of modernization based on the Bain Report was taken as an attack on the way that firefighters worked. The two issues were however interlinked because the modernization proposals linked pay to affordability and economic savings in the Fire Service. The fire fighters demanded recognition of their services to the public and in exchange they asked for a fair pay. Hence it was a link between pay, work and identity. Based on the above developments, the employment relations would be discussed and a PEST analysis conducted. Political As per the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992, with the modernization of the civil service, pay bargaining was devolved to the agency level and the local authorities were given the discretion. Collective bargaining was abolished and the agencies were given the responsibility for pay and grading of civil servants. On the one hand the Independent Review states that “Pay in the Fire Service is a matter for negotiation between the Fire Service employers and unions” (Burchill, 2004). Again, Burchill (2004) contends that people without power conducted most part of the negotiations on the employers’ side. This created confusion among the “lower officials” and the FBU about the ultimate strategy of the Government. In the final part of the negotiations, the Chair of the Local Government Association (LGA) got directly involved. At the same time, the Fire and Rescue Services Bill allowed the Government to impose settlement. Hence the Government was actually pursuing parallel sets of negotiations and its announcement to impose settlement was to satisfy big businesses that it was prepared to act tough (Stevens, 2003). They expected that the threats would force the FBU to call off the strike and enable the government to concentrate on war preparations. According to the Prime Minister, even the 11% increase announced over a period of two years was more than the pay of the nurses or the police officers. During the 1977 strike which had lasted nine weeks, the firefighters had received a substantial pay rise and there was an agreed formula for determining annual pay increases - the upper quartile of male manual earnings as determined by the annual New Earnings Survey (Burchill, 2004). Economic By modernizing the sector and becoming efficient, the government wants to cut costs rather than save life – this was the interpretation of the fire fighters (Edwards, 2007). The firefighters felt this was the government’s political and economic agenda to save money across public sector. Besides, the unions argue that the pay scales are very low especially for areas such as London where the cost of living is prohibitive. In May 2002, the FBU informed the fire services employers that the current pay structure of an average of £21,000 for a qualified firefighter was unacceptable. Such professionals risk their life on a daily basis for the public and they deserve higher incentives. However, a study found that firefighting was only 23rd most dangerous occupation after other occupations such as refuse collectors, lorry drivers, farm workers and builders (Economic Expert, 2003). Social The FBU leadership made the mistake of making the dispute appear on the government’s radar as an issue of authority and fiscal prudence (Steven 2007). The workers suffer at the end because the union leaders too would not jeopardize their position as mediators between workers and employers. The British public appears to be behind the firefighters and they also believe that these public servants are underpaid for risking their lives. The FBU believes that their strike received tremendous support from the public. At the same time, there is another set of people that think that this has been a deliberate attempt by the firefighters to abuse their position for financial gain and resort to ‘extortion’ (Economic Expert, 2003). The media too has been supportive of the strike. Technology Technology is advancing and new equipments and techniques have been introduced. The union agrees that the job of the firefighters has become more demanding as the perils of the job have increased. The firefighters have to work in close cooperation with the community and also respond to emergencies. The FBU argues that all these factors necessitate that the pay structure is immediately revised without the distraction of modernization (Steven, 2007). Employers viewpoint The employers demanded an inquiry to be set up by the government on the basis that this was the only way of securing additional funding. The proposal for inquiry was rejected by the employees while the employers insisted that an independent government inquiry was the only way forward. The employers had their own justification that the public sector pay bill was huge and they would need to convince the public of special wages for the fire services (Burchill, 2004). This meant that the modernization agenda would be adhered to as this was peculiar to fire services. The employers were trying to take a refuge in exercising the modernization agenda to revise the pay structure. Besides, there had been a shortfall in firefighters’ earnings. The modernization agenda demanded flexible working patterns which meant that overtime systems would have to change to deploy staff more flexible. The role of the service would be more towards community protection. Fire services would have to work in closer collaboration with other emergency services. All these required that an inquiry was the only way that higher pay to the fire services could be justified relative to other public sector workers. Grievances of employees The employers responded to the pay claims stating that any pay increase requires additional funding by the government. They urged the FBU not to discard the pay formula and also agreed that the modernization package would be discussed further. This was discussed in May 2002 but during the meeting in June 2002 there were issues other than pay claims on the agenda (Burchill, 2004). Another meeting in June also fetches no new result and in July 2002, the employers responded saying that all agreements were subject to ratifications of constituents. They added that any additional payment was subject to funding whereas the government had made it clear that additional money would not be available to fund the outcome of these negotiations. They were willing to abide by the national pay scales in the fire service. The employers expressed that there should be equal pay for work of equal value. The situation worsened as the inquiry was not viewed as an independent third party inquiry because it did not have the support of the union. The government was the pay master and the government had established the inquiry and the inquiry were denied the role of a mediator. Both sides created the potential for very difficult intra-organisational bargaining problems. During this period all serious pay negotiations were also frozen. Strike periods Strikes were deferred during the period of negotiation and inquiry. They set definite periods of strike rather than an all out strike, which showed some amount of flexibility. While they set deadlines they also signaled negotiating opportunities. They were also trading off strikes for concessions. When no agreement could be reached following the Bain Report, the union announced to the media that the government interference had wrecked the deal and they also announced the beginning of the eight-day strike (Burchill, 2004). The strike did not cause any serious problems and the government found this as a basis for further criticism of the fire service. In fact, the Cabinet Office Briefing Room A (COBRA) produced a report praising the armed forces during the period of strike. The armed forces managed to provide emergency cover during the strike using Green Goddess. The armed forces also used breathing apparatus rescue teams (BART) and rescue equipment support teams (REST) headed by professional firefighters of the RAF. The staff were specially trained in all three services. While each side blamed the other for the strike, public support for the strike also waned (Stevens, 2003). The strike went against the FBU and it did not have the support of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) also. Trade Unions and the Retained Fire fighters union The Retained Firefighters Union (RFU) was formed in 1976 with the aim to serve its members, manage their expectations and provide national and local representation (RFU, 2009). In addition they also provide any support and advice on issues relating to fire services including employment. They have no political affiliation and hence the subscription money is all used for the welfare of the members. The FBU has historically been one of the most powerful unions but its 40% demand for pay increase resulted in a split in the union as the dispute dragged on (Dinan et al., 2006). The government exploited these divisions to put pressure on the FBU to seek a compromise. Even though the settlement was considered a victory for FBU, internal divisions had already taken place. Summary of the dispute The following table summarizes the fire fighting dispute and the role of each side in precipitating the issue: Fire dispute at a glance Pay Bain Review Working Practices Fire Brigades Union Firefighters are calling for a 40% rise FBU leader: "He has effectively wrecked the pay talks." FBU leader: "Modernising the service should not be an excuse to undermine the union." Employers The employers have offered them an interim 4% rise They have warmly welcomed the Bain report endorsing its "vision" of the future "Any increase above 4% would have to be linked to modernisation and supported financially by the government." Bain Review Recommends a 4% rise in 2002 followed by 7% in 2003 "I think in the longer term it provides the only basis on which any kind of rational and equitable deal can be done." Calls for reform and end to overtime ban and for more flexible working practices in return for a raise Fire Service Minister "We made it clear that if they [the employers] went beyond 4% they would have to fund that." "I believe most fair-minded people would regard it as a good basis for the future terms of the fire service." "Investment in public services must go hand in hand with improvement and modernisation." Source: BBC News, 2002 Conclusion After a series of negotiations and deliberations an agreement could finally be reached which brought the dispute to an end. Both sides tried to impose their own stand what really went against the FBU was the eight-day strike. They lost public sympathy against their cause of better pay. The government could capitalize on the strike to bring out new legislation against strikes. They also used this issue to enforce modernization which the FBU was totally against. The government had its own reason to justify why fire services should be given a higher pay than other public services. The dispute ended with immediate pay increases from £21,500 to £25,000 but further increase was related to modernization. The fire fighters finally accepted a deal of 16% increase over three years which would be linked to changes in working conditions. The response of the government to the fire fighters’ issue showed the concern it had for public funds and also concern for the public safety. This is why it did not concede to unjustified demands of the FBU and could initiate army action when the firefighters went on strike. Employee relations have to be handled in an efficient manner and the strategy depends upon the situation. Reference: BBC News, 2002, Fire strike on as pay talks fail, retrieved online 25th July 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/2446643.stm Burchill, F 2004, The UK fire services dispute 2002-2003, Employee Relations, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 404-421 Corby, S 2005, Spot the Difference Between the Public and Private Sectors: Disputes and Third-Party Intervention in Britain, Public Money & Management, CIPFA, April 2005, retrieved online 25th July 2009 from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/704792_768607663_907337216.pdf Dinan, W Ford, A McConnell, A & Pyper, R 2006, Policy responses to crisis: the case of the UK firefighters’ dispute, Policy & Politics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 307-323 Economic Expert, 2003, UK Firefighter dispute 2002/2003, retrieved online 25th July 2009 from http://www.economicexpert.com/a/UK:Firefighter:dispute:2002:2003.html Edwards, G 2007, Habermas, Activism, and Acquiescence: Reactions to Colonization in UK Trade Unions, Social Movement Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 111-130 Kaplan, C 2000, THE DEATH OF THE WORKING-CLASS HERO, retrieved online 25th July 2009 from http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/newformations/articles/52%20kaaplan.pdf RFU, 2009, Protecting firefighters, protecting their communities, retrieved online 25th July 2009 from http://rfuonline.co.uk/ Stevens, R 2003, Britain: Labour government threatens ban on UK firefighters strike, retrieved online 25th July 2009 from http://wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/fire-j31.shtml Steven, 2007, Lions led by donkeys - FBU dispute, 2002-2003 - AF, retrieved online 25th July 2009 from http://libcom.org/library/lions-led-by-donkeys-fbu-dispute-2002-2003-af Read More