UK Firefighters' Dispute - Essay Example

UK FIREFIGHTERS DISPUTE INTRODUCTION In 2002, a serious pay dispute happened between the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) and their employers. On May 2002, the FBU sought a substantial increase in their salary. The FBU's Executive Committee launched their Pay Campaign stating that the firefighters should be given an annual salary of 30,000. Beside this objective, they also claimed that all members, including those working in the Retained and Volunteer Duty Systems, should receive the same training and wage as the others. In response to this, the Employers countered these proposals by offering a new pay formula starting on November 7, 2002, "that would link to annual pay settlements in the fire service to average settlements across the whole economy". They also offered an interim pay award of 4% starting on the same date and an independent inquiry into pay and modernisation. If this inquiry is agreed and produces an increase of more than four per cent, the firefighters would be paid that extra starting on the same date. If it produces less than four per cent, no money will be reclaimed. In fact, many believed that this is already a reasonable offer. If the FBU accepted their offer of four per cent interim, a fully qualified firefighter would earn 22, 392 per year. They said that they would agree for a special case of firefighters' pay increase provided they see some changes in the way the service operates. The Employers said, "In relation to the whole economy, firefighters are in the top half of the national earnings league for full-timers." And that, "Fifty per cent of male full-timers in the April 2001 New Earnings Survey earned less than 408 a week gross, whereas average earnings for qualified firefighters (firefighter being the lowest operational rank) at that time were 416 a week. They also said that it is true that firefighting is one of the hazardous occupations but as compared to some other occupations of the same category, the risk of death and injury in firefighting is lower. However, the FBU rejected this offer. They recalled a conference on September 12 where they passed a resolution to ballot all FBU members to "take a discontinuous strike action in pursuance of a fair wage for fire fighters and Emergency Fire Control Operators". They believed that they are worth this increase because of the job they do. They receive no shift payments, weekend allowances or payments for working night shifts unlike the majority of workers who do the shift system. They claimed that their earning of 21, 531 per annum is not a fair wage since 11% of this is deducted for their pension scheme and their hourly pay is lower since they work 42 hours weekly, more than that of the 38 or less standard working hours per week. This is the second national strike that happened after FBU's 1977 national strike where they campaigned for a forty-hour week labour for the firefighters, a ban on shift overtime and a 30 per cent pay claim. This strike lasted for nine weeks and although success is not immediate, soon the 42-hour week was introduced along with the pay formula in 1979 (Pounder, 2002). However, in 1980, the employers took on the offensive by publishing the 1980 Green Paper on the Fire Service. This paper aimed to reduce fire service jobs and standards of fire cover. Thus, conflict between the firefighters and their employers has been going on for the last three two and a half decades already. Both parties have many other arguments that support their claims. In this paper, there are four key questions discussed pertaining to this case. For the final question, an analysis with respect to the unitary, pluralist and radical views of power is provided. Q: Identify the different stakeholders in the conflict (both involved in and affected by the dispute) and their relative importance to the process. A: The obvious stakeholders involved in this dispute are the firefighters. Taking a strike action is a major risk for the firefighters because, first and foremost, they are not sure if doing this movement will enable to convince their employers to accept their claim. Also, they run the risk of being fired from their job. Furthermore, there is a huge chance that the Government would prevent the firefighters who join the strike to get their salaries. And for as long as their strike lasts, that's how long they will have to suffer lower income. For this, not only the individual firefighters suffer but as well as their families. Moreover, there will be more incidents of deaths due to fire accidents because there will be less, or worse no, firefighters to minister to these accidents. Because of this, the public will eventually lose their trust in them. They are relevant to the process because they are the ones who campaign for a pay increase. They are the ones risking their lives and their families' welfare just by taking this strike action. The firefighters have much to lose in this strike action especially if their campaign will not be successful. The Fire Brigades Union is also a stakeholder here, especially the officials of the Union. For one, they are responsible for convincing the firefighters to take a strike. If, say, the other firefighters did not join their pay campaign, they would have not enough power to convince the employers to accept their campaign. That is, they are not sure if all of the members of the Union will participate. Also, if majority of the members kept silent in this matter, they would have to withdraw their plan and, in doing this, suffer all the consequences that comes after it without them realizing their claim. They also take a major risk here. Members of the Union could be more affected by a ban on handing out the salaries of the firefighters if this happens. They are also responsible for the lives of the other firefighters. They are very much important in this dispute because, first and foremost, they are the ones who realized the need for a pay increase and, as mentioned earlier, convinced the firefighters to join this pay campaign and take a strike. The employers also have their own risks to take. They are stuck between the firefighters and the Government. If they don't agree to the firefighters' pay claim, the firefighters would be compelled to take a strike action. They say that they recognize that the firefighters are indeed underpaid but they do not have a choice because they cannot afford a pay increase of more than four per cent without increased government funding. The role of the employers is important to this dispute because they are the ones responsible in deciding whether to accept the firefighters claim or not. Like the employers, the Government has risks to take. They have to run an enquiry to study the firefighters' claims and then decide whether to increase their funding for the fire services or not. If they do not, the firefighters might continue their strike action which will eventually result to more fire incidents such as the one with the 89-year old who died because of fire. Moreover, the public might as well join the strike as they might choose to side with the firefighters' plight. The Government's role is also very important to the process since they are the ones who provide the funds for salaries. Of course, the public is greatly affected by this dispute. As mentioned earlier, due to the firefighters' strike action; there will be more abandoned fire incidents which could lead to more deaths due to fire. They are important to this process because they are the ones to whom the firefighters give their services. Q: Both sides in the dispute published material designed to persuade key audiences to their point of view. What are their key messages Who were they targeted and why A: The employers' key message is that the firefighters' claim for a pay increase from 21,531 to 30,000 is unreasonable mainly because at that time, there is 1.5% inflation. They also argued that most pay settlements range from three per cent to four per cent justifying their interim pay award of four per cent. Furthermore, they argued that this four per cent interim with the possibility of further increases is reasonable enough. They said that this four per cent increase should be given in return for some changes that will provide better service. They also stated that they cannot afford more than four per cent increase without the support of the government and to get this support, the firefighters' claim should be tested by an independent enquiry. With regards to the discontinuous strike taken by FBU, the employers mentioned that this course of action is extreme and drastic that will put lives at risk making it unnecessary and counterproductive. They contradict the firefighters' assertion that they (the firefighters) are not paid according to the skill their job requires by saying that the firefighters are, in fact, at the top half of the national earnings league for full timers. They also said that situations the firefighters face were not as dangerous as those of the other hazardous occupations like construction. On the other hand, the firefighters argue that they are worth the price they are asking for because they believe that their previous pay does not recognize their skills and training of four years before qualifying for a Firefighters exam. They asserted that they should not be compared to manual workers because there are no manual workers who train for four years. Instead, they should be classified along the line of lawyers, teachers, and other professionals since they also receive training for four years and so they must receive the same pay as these professionals receive. Aside from this, they said that they face more dangerous situations now than that in 1977 such as terrorist acts and chemical spills countering the assertion of the employers on the danger of the situations faced by firefighters. The employers' published material is targeted mainly at the firefighters' claim. This is their way of showing that the firefighters' claim and actions are unreasonable. Through this, they want to convince the firefighters to reassess their claim and to accept their offer. Also, they want to convince the firefighters not to resort to a strike. On the other hand, FBU's published material is designed to convince their employers that they are worth the pay increase they are asking for. They want their employers to see that their job is as hard and hazardous as the other occupations the employers mentioned. They want their employers to recognize that their job should not be categorized as manual since it requires difficult training and so it is only reasonable to increase their pay. Both published materials are addressed to the public as well. Both want to convince that their side is the more unreasonable one. They both know that getting the public's trust is a means to convince the other to accept their offer. It is an indication of the rationality of the claims of each party if the public supports them. It is noticeable that both the published material of each party included a poll saying that this per cent of people believes or supports their claim. In this way, one can show the number of people who support their cause. Q: What action(s) were available to be used by each side in the dispute Were all the conceivable weapons in the dispute used If not, why not A: There are many ways in which both parties can resolve this conflict - negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration (collectively known as alternative dispute resolutions). The first course of action that both sides to take is negotiation. Through this, both parties can site their arguments and claims until both reach an agreement were both are satisfied. However, negotiations between the firefighters and the employers result to a standoff. At first, it was a standoff to meet at a later time and re-negotiate but eventually the standoff resulted to a failure in reaching a compromise that satisfies both sides. It is during these periods that the more distressed group resorts to a more radical movement. That is through taking their campaign to the streets, which we call strike. Almost always, force is used here to convince the other of their plea. Walton and McKersie (1965), in analysing the tactics of distributive bargaining, stated that if both parties made firm commitments which are incompatible, a strike may result (Burchill, 2004). During the negotiations, one party may color his options so that the other party will accept without noticing that he favored this option. In Walton and McKersie (1965), they said: The practical ideal of a commitment strategy is for Party to develop his position in such a way that Opponent believes party is committed to an outcome most favorable to himself but at the same time leave himself an avenue of retreat known only to himself but which will permit him to demonstrate that he never was in fact committed to this outcome, should it develop that this becomes untenable. (Walton & McKersie, 1965) Another method both side could use is through conciliation. In contrast with negotiation which deals with both sides directly without the need of a third party, in conciliation there is a third party who meets each side separately and then discuss each side's claims to the other. However, a conciliator is not the one who decides the outcome of the party. He is simply a messenger. In these negotiations, both parties used written and verbal means. They meet several times during the first part of the dispute. One can only predict that, in these meetings, there have been several debates between the two parties. Both have also published materials not just to convince the other of their claims but to convince the public as a whole. Mediation can also be used to resolve the dispute. Unlike in conciliation where the two parties do not personally meet each other, in mediation there is a dialogue in which both parties are present along with a third party who will act as their mediator. But, as in conciliation, the mediator also has no power to decide the outcome of the party. In arbitration, another useful and peaceful method, another party is assigned to be the judge. This time, the parties are bound to agree to whatever the arbitrator decides. The employers attempted to use this method by assigning the Government as their judge. However, the firefighters did not accept this offer. In this particular case, not all of these dispute resolutions are used. In fact, only one resolution is used - negotiation. As mentioned earlier, negotiations between the firefighters and the employers resulted to a standoff wherein both parties cannot agree to the terms and conditions that the other offers. Resolutions involving third parties are not taken. Maybe both parties don't consider it a necessity to resort to these resolutions. One of the offers of the employers is to subject the firefighters to an independent inquiry, which, if the firefighters accepted, will result to arbitration. However, the firefighters did not accept this offer and so no arbitration happened. It is possible that this is because the firefighters believe that their claim is reasonable enough and so there is no need to test these claims. It also might be because they believe that the Government, who will give the inquiry, sides with the employers. It may also be because in arbitration, the firefighters will have no chance to defend themselves in case the inquiry reaches a decision to reject their claim. Q: Finally, (and most importantly) provide an analysis of the dispute in respect of unitary, pluralist and/or radical accounts of power. A: A glance at this case, one can see that this is a conflict between powers. As one of the Conservative Members of the Parliament said, after a year into the dispute, the public will find it difficult to distinguish who to blame more - the Fire Brigades Union for its intransigence, or the Government for its incompetence (Burchill, 2004). He also said: The catalogue of incompetence is extensive. It starts with the Deputy Prime Minister's ill-fated intervention at the Local Government Association conference nearly a year ago, when he trailed the Government's intention to set up an independent inquiry, thereby stalling the ongoing negotiations. It continued with the slow-motion establishment of that inquiry It further continued with the lethargic pace of the Bain inquiry ("Hansard", 2003) This dispute and the events that happened in it lead to the question, "Who is powerful here". The end statement of the above paragraph clearly states it, "Who runs the negotiations" ("Hansard", 2003) This dispute is a clear example of pluralism. Pluralism is a theory that states that an organization is led by a multitude of groups, not the people constituting it as a whole. These groups influence the making and administration of laws and policy, and the others merely act as bystanders (cite). The question apparent in this dispute is whether to accept the firefighters claim or not. This question is greatly significant especially to the firefighters because accepting their claim means that their skills and hard work are recognized. Also, the jobs and wages of the firefighters involved in this dispute hang in the balance. But what's more significant here is the way the issue was handled by the groups concerned. Apparently, this is a battle between FBU on one side and the employers on the other side. All the parties involved used almost every available resource. Negotiations are done between the first two parties at first. Several meetings were held and in these meetings a lot of debates happened between the two parties just to convince the other of their claim. These debates did not only happen in these meetings. Both parties used published materials designed to convince, not just one another, but the public as well that their side of the story is reasonable. Since nothing can be agreed, the employers requested the Government to run an inquiry on the matters pay and modernisation. Even though the FBU disagreed to this offer; the employers still 'forced' the Government to test the firefighters' claim. This resulted to a strike action taken by the firefighters. At first, it would seem that the firefighters have no chance to win this dispute. But their strike action soon convinced their opponent to finally take their claim. During the course of the strike, there have been increasing incidents of fire accidents and so, increasing deaths and injuries. For this reason, the employers, recognizing the dangers of prolonging the strike finally decided to accept the firefighters' offer. CONCLUSION This paper did not attempt to give its opinions on whether who is more right or who is faultier. Rather, this is an attempt to answer each of the four questions above critically. Also, this paper attempted to lay down the highlights and most significant events of the story. Furthermore, the paper provided a brief analysis of the dispute in terms of the pluralist view of power. In every country, community or organization, there are always groups of people who can influence the whole more than anybody can. Although ideally, the organization should always act as one, there will still emerge the most, or more, powerful. And during disputes, the question always emerges - who is more powerful The firefighters' dispute is one concrete example of this view of power. In this case, the two major groups battling for the throne are the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. As apparent in their negotiations, each side never concedes to the other. Neither want to admit that their claim is unreasonable. To do this, each side used every available action necessary to convince that their side of the story should be the one heard. Each side attempted to convince everybody that their side of the story is the more reasonable one and hence, their claim should be the one accepted. But, inevitably, one concedes to the other so as to end the conflict finally. However, one should bear in mind that giving way to the other is not a sign of weakness nor does winning the argument a sign of power. One should not say that the firefighters winning the dispute and getting their claim is a sign that they are the more powerful. It is because they have more conviction in their claims. They did not stop until they get what they wanted. Even though the employers offered an increase of four per cent, they did not accept it because it is not what they aimed for. They stood by what they claimed and fought for it until the end. Most importantly, power is not all around. By this statement, I mean that nobody is all-powerful. A group can be powerful in this area but weak in another area. The measure of power is not the depth or length of obedience of one's subjects. Rather, it is the scope of power or the range of areas where it is successfully applied. A text best summarizes power: For all these reasons power cannot be taken for granted. One has observe it empirically in order to know who really governs. The best way to do this, pluralists believe, is to examine a wide range of specific decisions, noting who took which side and who ultimately won and lost. Only by keeping score on a variety of controversies can one begin to identify actual power holders. ("Pluralism") REFERENCES ("The B-1 Bomber: A Case Study of Pluralism") Read More