https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/ Sat, 24 Oct 2026 09:41:45 +0000 MyBB https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29084 Wed, 23 Jun 2021 08:17:02 +0000 brumble49]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=29084
In the letter Matt explains that the union is aware “of the likelihood of a White Paper addressing issues within the fire and rescue service”, and that there are concerns around “two specific areas which appear to be under consideration; the role of Police and Crime Commissioners and the issue of collective bargaining within the service”.

With regards to PCCs it is thought that takeovers by them of fire services could be mandated, threatening local democracy and the clear distinction between the police and fire services.

The union believes that collective bargaining is under threat due to a series of government-led inspection reports which heavily criticised current arrangements. However these criticisms came from a small number of chiefs, and are not reflective of the majority of comments from chief fire officers.

The removal of collective bargaining would threaten the pay and conditions of firefighters and control staff in the future, and could even contradict the Brexit agreement.

You can read the letter here.]]>
In the letter Matt explains that the union is aware “of the likelihood of a White Paper addressing issues within the fire and rescue service”, and that there are concerns around “two specific areas which appear to be under consideration; the role of Police and Crime Commissioners and the issue of collective bargaining within the service”.

With regards to PCCs it is thought that takeovers by them of fire services could be mandated, threatening local democracy and the clear distinction between the police and fire services.

The union believes that collective bargaining is under threat due to a series of government-led inspection reports which heavily criticised current arrangements. However these criticisms came from a small number of chiefs, and are not reflective of the majority of comments from chief fire officers.

The removal of collective bargaining would threaten the pay and conditions of firefighters and control staff in the future, and could even contradict the Brexit agreement.

You can read the letter here.]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28736 Thu, 19 Dec 2019 21:32:23 +0000 velbert]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28736 https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28677 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 22:57:31 +0000 jake]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28677
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]]]>
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28613 Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:33:11 +0000 velbert]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28613 https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28375 Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:14:46 +0000 Pricus]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=28375
can you be put out the job on capability if you fail to pass the HGV or EFAD tests?

There seems to be differing opinions on the being forced part across uk depending on what region you're in.

I've heard

"it's in your rolemap you need to do it"

"it's an additional skill"

"it says you have to drive but says nothing about HGV or blue lights"

The grey book says something along the lines of if all other training needs are met and there's a genuine reason for not driving you don't have to.

The capability question is just something I've heard banded about that people have been told if they continue to fail tests that station managers will be looking at capability. Could very well just be fire brigade rumours.]]>
can you be put out the job on capability if you fail to pass the HGV or EFAD tests?

There seems to be differing opinions on the being forced part across uk depending on what region you're in.

I've heard

"it's in your rolemap you need to do it"

"it's an additional skill"

"it says you have to drive but says nothing about HGV or blue lights"

The grey book says something along the lines of if all other training needs are met and there's a genuine reason for not driving you don't have to.

The capability question is just something I've heard banded about that people have been told if they continue to fail tests that station managers will be looking at capability. Could very well just be fire brigade rumours.]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=27602 Thu, 09 Mar 2017 15:34:24 +0000 Jojo]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=27602 https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=27050 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:24:11 +0000 bakes]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=27050

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/

Momentum exists to build on the energy and enthusiasm from the Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader campaign to increase participatory democracy, solidarity, and grassroots power and help Labour become the transformative governing party of the 21st century.

:C]]>

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/

Momentum exists to build on the energy and enthusiasm from the Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader campaign to increase participatory democracy, solidarity, and grassroots power and help Labour become the transformative governing party of the 21st century.

:C]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26849 Sat, 12 Mar 2016 19:34:27 +0000 big smoothie]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26849
The FBU will not oppose the reduction in crewing levels on ARP'S said Wee Gordy

I wonder what his reward was?

The new guy's are defending this decision by claiming this was signed off by previous officials......]]>
The FBU will not oppose the reduction in crewing levels on ARP'S said Wee Gordy

I wonder what his reward was?

The new guy's are defending this decision by claiming this was signed off by previous officials......]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26592 Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:30:10 +0000 velbert]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26592

The message below is from the FBU’s executive council member for London, Ian Leahair, and is for the attention of all London members.

MTFA/MCR: NO AGREEMENT WITH FBU

The FBU is aware that London Fire Brigade managers have been actively seeking volunteers to undertake training in relation to advanced trauma care and mass casualty retrieval (MCR) as part of a Marauding Terrorism and Firearms Attack (MTFA) response. This type of work would involve working in what is described as the ‘warm zone’ following a terrorist-related incident.

Delicate discussions surrounding all this type of work are currently taking place between national FBU officials and national fire service employers under the auspices of the National Joint Council (NJC). The proposed work is not currently part of a firefighter’s contractual role. However, discussions are progressing carefully, and both sides hope to reach an agreement.

We are therefore extremely disappointed that LFB managers have sought to pre-empt the outcome of these national discussions by pushing ahead with this training prematurely. We are also disappointed that they saw fit not to consult with the FBU over this initiative.

There are a whole range of factors to be considered when committing firefighters into the ‘warm zone’ at any terrorist-related incident. That’s why it was deemed appropriate for discussions to take place at a national level.

We understand entirely why members would be anxious to ensure the best possible response is provided in the event of a terrorist-related incident. However, there are real risks to members in volunteering for such work in the absence of a national agreement. Volunteering would serve only to undermine the efforts of the FBU in seeking to ensure the safest systems of work, best equipment and proper legal protections are in place before our members are asked to take part in MTFA-related work.

Furthermore, we are not satisfied at this stage that sufficient guarantees are in place to ensure that a full injury award would become payable under the pension scheme in the event that a member was retired on grounds of ill-health as a result of an injury sustained while undertaking this work. There may also be an impact on members’ private insurance policies (such as life insurance), as quite often these policies will contain restrictive clauses about work of this nature.

Additionally, in the absence of a national agreement, no death benefit or disablement payments would be made under the Accident and Injury Fund.

These important matters continue to be discussed at a national level, and sufficient guarantees must be in place before any agreement is reached. That’s why we urge members very strongly to consider the impact on themselves and their families in volunteering for such a role in the absence of safe systems of work, proper legal protections and guarantees over the effect on their pensions and insurance.

Members may also be interested to learn that some senior managers have been offered payments of £1,000 as well as salary enhancements of up to 10% to undertake this type of work, while it would appear that those in the role of firefighter to watch manager have been offered nothing.

In light of everything above, the FBU strongly believes that members should refrain from volunteering for any MTFA/MCR-related work at this time. We would further advise anyone who has previously volunteered to exercise their right to withdraw their application.

Yours fraternally

Ian Leahair
Executive Council Member (London Region)
Fire Brigades Union]]>

The message below is from the FBU’s executive council member for London, Ian Leahair, and is for the attention of all London members.

MTFA/MCR: NO AGREEMENT WITH FBU

The FBU is aware that London Fire Brigade managers have been actively seeking volunteers to undertake training in relation to advanced trauma care and mass casualty retrieval (MCR) as part of a Marauding Terrorism and Firearms Attack (MTFA) response. This type of work would involve working in what is described as the ‘warm zone’ following a terrorist-related incident.

Delicate discussions surrounding all this type of work are currently taking place between national FBU officials and national fire service employers under the auspices of the National Joint Council (NJC). The proposed work is not currently part of a firefighter’s contractual role. However, discussions are progressing carefully, and both sides hope to reach an agreement.

We are therefore extremely disappointed that LFB managers have sought to pre-empt the outcome of these national discussions by pushing ahead with this training prematurely. We are also disappointed that they saw fit not to consult with the FBU over this initiative.

There are a whole range of factors to be considered when committing firefighters into the ‘warm zone’ at any terrorist-related incident. That’s why it was deemed appropriate for discussions to take place at a national level.

We understand entirely why members would be anxious to ensure the best possible response is provided in the event of a terrorist-related incident. However, there are real risks to members in volunteering for such work in the absence of a national agreement. Volunteering would serve only to undermine the efforts of the FBU in seeking to ensure the safest systems of work, best equipment and proper legal protections are in place before our members are asked to take part in MTFA-related work.

Furthermore, we are not satisfied at this stage that sufficient guarantees are in place to ensure that a full injury award would become payable under the pension scheme in the event that a member was retired on grounds of ill-health as a result of an injury sustained while undertaking this work. There may also be an impact on members’ private insurance policies (such as life insurance), as quite often these policies will contain restrictive clauses about work of this nature.

Additionally, in the absence of a national agreement, no death benefit or disablement payments would be made under the Accident and Injury Fund.

These important matters continue to be discussed at a national level, and sufficient guarantees must be in place before any agreement is reached. That’s why we urge members very strongly to consider the impact on themselves and their families in volunteering for such a role in the absence of safe systems of work, proper legal protections and guarantees over the effect on their pensions and insurance.

Members may also be interested to learn that some senior managers have been offered payments of £1,000 as well as salary enhancements of up to 10% to undertake this type of work, while it would appear that those in the role of firefighter to watch manager have been offered nothing.

In light of everything above, the FBU strongly believes that members should refrain from volunteering for any MTFA/MCR-related work at this time. We would further advise anyone who has previously volunteered to exercise their right to withdraw their application.

Yours fraternally

Ian Leahair
Executive Council Member (London Region)
Fire Brigades Union]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26519 Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:14:33 +0000 velbert]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26519 FBU in historic affiliation to Labour



Today, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has made a historic move as the first trade union to re-affiliate to the Labour Party more than a decade after it withdrew its support.

Union delegates voted for the FBU to support the Labour Party, reinvigorated after the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader, at a special conference in Blackpool.

The FBU was one of the first trade unions to declare support for Corbyn’s leadership campaign. The union’s executive council voted to recommend re-affiliation after his landslide election victory in September. Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell co-founded the unions’ parliamentary group after the union disaffiliated from Labour in 2004 after a dispute over pay and conditions under the Blair government.

Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary, said: “Firefighters recognise that the Labour party has changed for the better since the election of Jeremy Corbyn, who has given our members and supporters hope that we can shift the political debate in favour of working people. We have a Labour Party leader and shadow chancellor who are vehemently opposed to austerity, who are ready to fight for a fair alternative that doesn’t attack the living standards, livelihoods and the hard won rights of working people.

“Since the Tories came to power, initially in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, 7,000 firefighter jobs have been cut and more than 40 fire stations have closed, with almost 145 fire engines pulled from service up to 2013 alone. Last week, the government’s own figures showed we have the longest 999 response times to fires for 20 years. Firefighters, like millions of others, have had their pensions attacked and their living standards driven down by George Osborne’s pay freeze.

“The best chance we have of halting the now critical cuts to fire and rescue services and to fight for better conditions for firefighters and all working people is to defeat the cuts agenda outright and work to elect an anti-austerity party to government.”

The FBU has taken account of differences in the political situation across the UK and will not use political fund money from Scotland or Northern Ireland to support affiliation.

http://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2015/11/fbu-in-historic-affiliation-to-labour/]]> FBU in historic affiliation to Labour



Today, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has made a historic move as the first trade union to re-affiliate to the Labour Party more than a decade after it withdrew its support.

Union delegates voted for the FBU to support the Labour Party, reinvigorated after the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader, at a special conference in Blackpool.

The FBU was one of the first trade unions to declare support for Corbyn’s leadership campaign. The union’s executive council voted to recommend re-affiliation after his landslide election victory in September. Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell co-founded the unions’ parliamentary group after the union disaffiliated from Labour in 2004 after a dispute over pay and conditions under the Blair government.

Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary, said: “Firefighters recognise that the Labour party has changed for the better since the election of Jeremy Corbyn, who has given our members and supporters hope that we can shift the political debate in favour of working people. We have a Labour Party leader and shadow chancellor who are vehemently opposed to austerity, who are ready to fight for a fair alternative that doesn’t attack the living standards, livelihoods and the hard won rights of working people.

“Since the Tories came to power, initially in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, 7,000 firefighter jobs have been cut and more than 40 fire stations have closed, with almost 145 fire engines pulled from service up to 2013 alone. Last week, the government’s own figures showed we have the longest 999 response times to fires for 20 years. Firefighters, like millions of others, have had their pensions attacked and their living standards driven down by George Osborne’s pay freeze.

“The best chance we have of halting the now critical cuts to fire and rescue services and to fight for better conditions for firefighters and all working people is to defeat the cuts agenda outright and work to elect an anti-austerity party to government.”

The FBU has taken account of differences in the political situation across the UK and will not use political fund money from Scotland or Northern Ireland to support affiliation.

http://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2015/11/fbu-in-historic-affiliation-to-labour/]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26506 Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:06:29 +0000 jake]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26506 https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26418 Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:24:12 +0000 firey950]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26418 not a problem or is it too cosy ?]]> not a problem or is it too cosy ?]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26272 Sat, 01 Aug 2015 14:16:05 +0000 Tornado]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=26272 To represent members interest
This time for treasurer
An important role
I'm sure you'll agree
Especially after the mysterious
Disappearance of the last holder
But that is another debate

It seems candidates in this election
Are concerned over spending
And expenses claimed
And so they should
Given the positions they seek

It would be easier to pick
A candidate if we knew
What each candidate Claims
Per month in their current positions
One candidate has told us
The other has not
Is there a reason for this

Given the election addresses
Perhaps one candidate should
Practice what they preach
And be open and accountable
With their expenses claims]]> To represent members interest
This time for treasurer
An important role
I'm sure you'll agree
Especially after the mysterious
Disappearance of the last holder
But that is another debate

It seems candidates in this election
Are concerned over spending
And expenses claimed
And so they should
Given the positions they seek

It would be easier to pick
A candidate if we knew
What each candidate Claims
Per month in their current positions
One candidate has told us
The other has not
Is there a reason for this

Given the election addresses
Perhaps one candidate should
Practice what they preach
And be open and accountable
With their expenses claims]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=25131 Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:05:21 +0000 bluejohn]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=25131
This region notes the failure of the government to make an acceptable offer on pensions that would allow for the resolution of the current dispute. The government’s intransigence is the sole reason for the lack of progress.

This region also notes that government claims of ‘robust’ contingency arrangements during strike action have been rendered completely hollow by a slew of media stories exposing the incompetence and uselessness of strikebreaking crews.

We believe that the government’s belligerent approach is such that it no longer deserves to be able to rely on the safety net that is provided by the national agreement on recall-to-duty for major incidents during strike action.

This region therefore instructs the executive council to withdraw from the recall-to-duty agreement with immediate effect.]]>
This region notes the failure of the government to make an acceptable offer on pensions that would allow for the resolution of the current dispute. The government’s intransigence is the sole reason for the lack of progress.

This region also notes that government claims of ‘robust’ contingency arrangements during strike action have been rendered completely hollow by a slew of media stories exposing the incompetence and uselessness of strikebreaking crews.

We believe that the government’s belligerent approach is such that it no longer deserves to be able to rely on the safety net that is provided by the national agreement on recall-to-duty for major incidents during strike action.

This region therefore instructs the executive council to withdraw from the recall-to-duty agreement with immediate effect.]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=24896 Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:05:12 +0000 velbert]]> https://www.uk-fire.net/forum2/showthread.php?tid=24896 Fire Brigades Union (London Region), John Horner Mews, Frome Street, London N1 8PB. Tel: 020-7359 3638

P ATIENCE AND REASONABLENESS
haven’t worked. After three years of
negotiations, the government remains
intent on smashing up firefighters’
pensions.

The fire minister, Brandon Lewis, wants to force
every firefighter to serve on the frontline until 60 in
the future.

He wants every firefighter to pay several hundred
pounds more annually in pension contributions.
He wants thousands of firefighters to work
longer—up to 10 years in some cases—than they
were originally told.

He wants firefighters to forfeit huge chunks of
their pension—or be sacked—if they are unable to
maintain fitness standards.

Promises made to firefighters when they joined
the service have been broken with impunity.
These are the issues that lie at the heart of our
dispute and on which we have campaigned since
2011.

But the simple truth is that the government has
not shifted significantly on any of them. Not
because we’ve been too militant. But because
we’ve been too nice.

We should be under no illusions about the effort
involved in changing a government’s position
during an industrial dispute. Of course it will take a
serious fight. But London FBU members are up for
that fight. They realise that the alternative—to roll
over and give the government everything it
wants—is not an option.

It would seem that FBU members throughout the
rest of the country are up for the fight, too. That’s
why we won an overwhelming 78% ‘yes’ vote in
the strike ballot last August.
But since that result was announced, the strategy
of the union’s executive council (EC) has been
marked by excessive caution, by hesitancy and by
a lack of confidence in members.

Too often things have been allowed to drift. The
intervals between strike periods have been far too
long. Escalation should have happened much
earlier.
In the last 10 months, the EC has called less
than four days of strike action.
That is simply not good enough.

Momentum is a key factor in any industrial
dispute. Procrastination can undermine it. Inertia
causes confusion and frustration among members.
London members aren’t the only ones
demanding an escalation of strike action.
Members in the north-west region (covering
Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Lancashire,
Cumbria, Cheshire and Isle of Man) support an
escalation, too.

And Essex FBU members have voted in favour
of calling strikes for between eight and 16 days at
a time.
Brandon Lewis isn’t listening...
IT’S TIME TO
ESCALATE


Since 2011, while the FBU leadership has been
practising patience and reasonableness, Brandon
Lewis has been plundering our pensions.
While the EC was being patient and reasonable,
Lewis forced through a change in the normal
pension age to 60.
While the EC was being patient and reasonable,
Lewis hiked up our pension contributions on three
separate occasions.
While the EC was being patient and reasonable,
Lewis began the process of imposing the
contentious 2015 pension scheme.
While the EC was practising appeasement, the
government was waging war.

Over the last three years, members have seen a
stream of circulars from the national union telling
them that a serious fight is imminent.
They have heard, at meetings, senior union
officials—most notably general secretary Matt
Wrack, president Alan McLean and pensions officer
Sean Starbuck—tub-thump about how the gloves
will soon be coming off.
But every time the gloves come off, they are put
back on very quickly.
Such tactics run the danger of making the union
look weak and indecisive.

The recent decision to call a 24-hour strike was
welcome—but alone it isn’t nearly enough.
Of course strike tactics must be measured and
properly thought through. But everyone can see
that short, irregular strikes will not win this dispute.
Short strikes can work—but only if they are called
frequently. Otherwise, strikes must be longer.
Despite Brandon Lewis’s claims that it is
‘business as usual’ during strikes, contingency
plans have been totally exposed.

The scabs are failing. Lives have been lost, and
homes and workplaces have been destroyed.
No-one welcomes this, least of all proud and
compassionate firefighters, but it proves that the
government would be reckless to allow the dispute
to rumble on indefinitely.

There is more pressure on David Cameron and
Brandon Lewis than there is on FBU members.
Yesterday, in the House of Commons, Cameron
came under pressure to settle the dispute.
And speaking recently on national radio, Amanda
Platell, a former chief spin doctor for the Tories,
argued that the government should be looking to
cut a deal with firefighters before the general
election campaign begins.

CREDIT WHERE it is due, the EC has done
much right in this dispute. Our campaign
has been slick and professional; union
officials have spoken well in the media; and our
evidence-based arguments have trounced the
government’s case.
But powerful technical arguments and effective
presentation are not enough. They must be backed
up with a hard-hitting industrial campaign.
And that means more potent strikes.

Equally, the EC has made mistakes, and
members are entitled to debate those mistakes.
Alongside the excessive caution in setting strike
dates, there has been at least one other major
misjudgement.
That was the decision—which looks more illjudged
with each passing day—to allow the
Scottish region to cut free of taking strike action
following an improved (but still unsatisfactory) offer
from the Scottish government.
This was a serious tactical error and one that had
the potential to undermine our national campaign.
The EC must be bold enough to recognise their
mistake and show that they have learned the
lessons of it.

THE EXECUTIVE council meets again on 1
July. London’s EC member Ian Leahair will
be arguing strongly for an escalation of strike
action.
In the absence of an improved offer from Brandon
Lewis, it is surely inconceivable that the EC will not
agree.
No doubt Mr Lewis will offer to meet the FBU on
the condition that no strike action is called. But it
would be naïve in the extreme for the EC to fall for
this trick.

London FBU members will not be bought off with
promises of more meetings. We learned that lesson
in 2002-03 during the national pay strikes.
Only a significantly improved offer (by which we
do not mean the recent so-called ‘costed
proposals’) should be enough to persuade the EC
not to escalate our strikes.

Hundreds of thousands of local government
workers and teachers will be taking co-ordinated
strike action on 10 July. London FBU believes
firefighters should be on strike alongside them.
Some among the leadership of our union—
including the general secretary, assistant general
secretary, national officers and EC members—owe
their positions to the opposition they displayed to
the inadequate agreement that settled the 2002-03
pay dispute and the role they played in the
campaign for a more democratic and fighting union
that followed in its wake.
These officials must remember where they came
from and why they were elected.

London FBU members are furious at the attempts
by government to destroy their futures. They are
crying out for a fightback.
It’s time for the union’s leadership to start leading
that fight.
It’s time to escalate

http://www.london.fbu.org.uk/wp-content/...06/107.pdf]]> Fire Brigades Union (London Region), John Horner Mews, Frome Street, London N1 8PB. Tel: 020-7359 3638

P ATIENCE AND REASONABLENESS
haven’t worked. After three years of
negotiations, the government remains
intent on smashing up firefighters’
pensions.

The fire minister, Brandon Lewis, wants to force
every firefighter to serve on the frontline until 60 in
the future.

He wants every firefighter to pay several hundred
pounds more annually in pension contributions.
He wants thousands of firefighters to work
longer—up to 10 years in some cases—than they
were originally told.

He wants firefighters to forfeit huge chunks of
their pension—or be sacked—if they are unable to
maintain fitness standards.

Promises made to firefighters when they joined
the service have been broken with impunity.
These are the issues that lie at the heart of our
dispute and on which we have campaigned since
2011.

But the simple truth is that the government has
not shifted significantly on any of them. Not
because we’ve been too militant. But because
we’ve been too nice.

We should be under no illusions about the effort
involved in changing a government’s position
during an industrial dispute. Of course it will take a
serious fight. But London FBU members are up for
that fight. They realise that the alternative—to roll
over and give the government everything it
wants—is not an option.

It would seem that FBU members throughout the
rest of the country are up for the fight, too. That’s
why we won an overwhelming 78% ‘yes’ vote in
the strike ballot last August.
But since that result was announced, the strategy
of the union’s executive council (EC) has been
marked by excessive caution, by hesitancy and by
a lack of confidence in members.

Too often things have been allowed to drift. The
intervals between strike periods have been far too
long. Escalation should have happened much
earlier.
In the last 10 months, the EC has called less
than four days of strike action.
That is simply not good enough.

Momentum is a key factor in any industrial
dispute. Procrastination can undermine it. Inertia
causes confusion and frustration among members.
London members aren’t the only ones
demanding an escalation of strike action.
Members in the north-west region (covering
Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Lancashire,
Cumbria, Cheshire and Isle of Man) support an
escalation, too.

And Essex FBU members have voted in favour
of calling strikes for between eight and 16 days at
a time.
Brandon Lewis isn’t listening...
IT’S TIME TO
ESCALATE


Since 2011, while the FBU leadership has been
practising patience and reasonableness, Brandon
Lewis has been plundering our pensions.
While the EC was being patient and reasonable,
Lewis forced through a change in the normal
pension age to 60.
While the EC was being patient and reasonable,
Lewis hiked up our pension contributions on three
separate occasions.
While the EC was being patient and reasonable,
Lewis began the process of imposing the
contentious 2015 pension scheme.
While the EC was practising appeasement, the
government was waging war.

Over the last three years, members have seen a
stream of circulars from the national union telling
them that a serious fight is imminent.
They have heard, at meetings, senior union
officials—most notably general secretary Matt
Wrack, president Alan McLean and pensions officer
Sean Starbuck—tub-thump about how the gloves
will soon be coming off.
But every time the gloves come off, they are put
back on very quickly.
Such tactics run the danger of making the union
look weak and indecisive.

The recent decision to call a 24-hour strike was
welcome—but alone it isn’t nearly enough.
Of course strike tactics must be measured and
properly thought through. But everyone can see
that short, irregular strikes will not win this dispute.
Short strikes can work—but only if they are called
frequently. Otherwise, strikes must be longer.
Despite Brandon Lewis’s claims that it is
‘business as usual’ during strikes, contingency
plans have been totally exposed.

The scabs are failing. Lives have been lost, and
homes and workplaces have been destroyed.
No-one welcomes this, least of all proud and
compassionate firefighters, but it proves that the
government would be reckless to allow the dispute
to rumble on indefinitely.

There is more pressure on David Cameron and
Brandon Lewis than there is on FBU members.
Yesterday, in the House of Commons, Cameron
came under pressure to settle the dispute.
And speaking recently on national radio, Amanda
Platell, a former chief spin doctor for the Tories,
argued that the government should be looking to
cut a deal with firefighters before the general
election campaign begins.

CREDIT WHERE it is due, the EC has done
much right in this dispute. Our campaign
has been slick and professional; union
officials have spoken well in the media; and our
evidence-based arguments have trounced the
government’s case.
But powerful technical arguments and effective
presentation are not enough. They must be backed
up with a hard-hitting industrial campaign.
And that means more potent strikes.

Equally, the EC has made mistakes, and
members are entitled to debate those mistakes.
Alongside the excessive caution in setting strike
dates, there has been at least one other major
misjudgement.
That was the decision—which looks more illjudged
with each passing day—to allow the
Scottish region to cut free of taking strike action
following an improved (but still unsatisfactory) offer
from the Scottish government.
This was a serious tactical error and one that had
the potential to undermine our national campaign.
The EC must be bold enough to recognise their
mistake and show that they have learned the
lessons of it.

THE EXECUTIVE council meets again on 1
July. London’s EC member Ian Leahair will
be arguing strongly for an escalation of strike
action.
In the absence of an improved offer from Brandon
Lewis, it is surely inconceivable that the EC will not
agree.
No doubt Mr Lewis will offer to meet the FBU on
the condition that no strike action is called. But it
would be naïve in the extreme for the EC to fall for
this trick.

London FBU members will not be bought off with
promises of more meetings. We learned that lesson
in 2002-03 during the national pay strikes.
Only a significantly improved offer (by which we
do not mean the recent so-called ‘costed
proposals’) should be enough to persuade the EC
not to escalate our strikes.

Hundreds of thousands of local government
workers and teachers will be taking co-ordinated
strike action on 10 July. London FBU believes
firefighters should be on strike alongside them.
Some among the leadership of our union—
including the general secretary, assistant general
secretary, national officers and EC members—owe
their positions to the opposition they displayed to
the inadequate agreement that settled the 2002-03
pay dispute and the role they played in the
campaign for a more democratic and fighting union
that followed in its wake.
These officials must remember where they came
from and why they were elected.

London FBU members are furious at the attempts
by government to destroy their futures. They are
crying out for a fightback.
It’s time for the union’s leadership to start leading
that fight.
It’s time to escalate

http://www.london.fbu.org.uk/wp-content/...06/107.pdf]]>