In the 1970s trade unions kept their members’ wages above the market rate by strikes, threats of strikes, closed shops and intimidatory picketing.  They kept employment levels in their favoured industries artificially high by refusing to alter obsolete working practices.   Newspaper printers delayed computerised typesetting for years, the train drivers union ASLEF insisted on keeping a fireman in the cab long after diesel had replaced steam, and the dock unions kept the ports hopelessly over manned despite the introduction of containers and modern loading equipment.    Employers and politicians connived in the process for the sake of peace.

Everyone was harmed.  People who would have been willing to work for lower wages than the union members, worked for even lower wages elsewhere, or did not work at all.  The economy grew more slowly than it would otherwise have done.    Even the protected union members found themselves doing mindless work in declining industries long after their more flexible colleagues had moved on to higher paid and more intellectually demanding jobs in the new economy.

Eventually the various Thatcher governments took on such unions, and most restrictive practices ended.  The “firemen” in the diesel engine cabs were forced to get proper jobs.   Fleet Street's newspapers moved to Wapping and electronic typesetting.   If Mrs. Thatcher had lost her argument with Arthur Scargill thousands of able-bodied sons of miners would even now be hewing coal and developing miner’s lung disease instead of working in the new economy as city traders, male nurses, or computer programmers. 

Eventually even the trade unionists’ own political party learnt the lesson.  It elected Tony Blair as its leader, called itself New Labour, and is now winning votes by following in the Conservative's footsteps and taking on the unions.  The Tories won the argument, but Labour is winning the electoral credit.   

What should the Tories do?

Of course we should remain true to our principles and support Blair when he opposes strikes and closed shops.   However, we must do more.  It’s time to teach voters to see the other dark side of trade union militancy; the way closed shops favoured the union’s traditional membership, white males, and kept women and members of ethnic minorities out of the best jobs.  

The Fire Brigades Union (F. B. U.) is a glaring example.   They are striking now, not for more money (they have plenty of that) but because The Bain Report into their pay and conditions of service has rumbled them.  Let us see what the report said.

“Many Fire Service personnel, at all levels, have told us that change is required. The service is achieving improvements in performance despite, rather than because of, its organisation and structure, which can no longer meet the full range of demands placed upon it by the local community.”

“The legislative basis upon which the service is established dates from 1947; society and the requirements it places on a modern Fire Service have changed enormously since then. The Fire Service as an institution has not changed in turn.”

“Many have seen the need for change, and we have been impressed by the readiness of individuals, politicians, officers and fire fighters themselves to tackle the requirements of overdue reform and to grasp the opportunities that are offered. There are many constructive ideas as to what is required and how it can be achieved.”

“At a national level, however, the Fire Service has not changed significantly, and all the principal stakeholders – the Government, the Local Authority Employers, senior management of the Fire Service and the Fire Service unions – must take their share of the blame.”

“Ministers have failed to give the leadership required, and those who advise them have failed to tackle obvious deficiencies in legislation and structural constraints. There has been an almost total lack of real political engagement in the Fire Service since the last firefighters’ strike in 1977. The 1947 Act is hopelessly outdated.”

“Local Authority employers of fire brigades have in general shown a lack of leadership and purpose especially when acting together to negotiate pay and conditions. The Fire Brigades Union, while professing its enthusiasm for change, has shown no real commitment to make it happen from the centre and in many parts of the service has mounted sustained and energetic opposition to change. The senior management of the Fire Service has shown a collective lack of leadership.”

“We have been dismayed, however, to discover the lack of progress that has been made. Report after report has recommended change and modernisation. Modest changes have taken place but the major reforms required in form, function, legislative backing and management have all been neglected.”

These are strong words from an official enquiry .  Decoded they mean that the Fire Brigades Union has maintained it’s Spanish practices with the threat of strikes, and that employers and politicians have failed to take them on.   Let’s look at the facts.

Newly qualified firemen in Britain get around £21,000 per annum and senior firemen £31,000.   On the face of it a modest salary, but the work is hardly onerous.  

Over the last few days we've seen 19,000 soldiers seemingly able to do the job of 55,000 full time firefighters pretty well.   The 42 hours per week shift pattern is made up of two days on duty and two nights on call, followed by six days off.   In most stations, most of the time, at least 16 of those hours can quite legitimately be spent fast asleep.  Not surprisingly the union has insisted that night shifts be manned at the same level as the day ones, despite having many fewer calls.  Even some of the day shift can often be spent reading, playing cards or even catching up on the paper work for their second jobs. 

Second jobs?  Oh yes.  These effectively part time shift patterns permit most firemen to hold down another job.  

Some London firemen commute from as far afield as County Durham, Norfolk and Merseyside.  Their union would have you believe that this is because they cannot afford houses in the southeast.  Not so.  It’s so they can get the London salary weighting while living in a cheaper region.   London nurses, teachers, and factory workers can’t do that, so many of their job vacancies remain unfilled. 

The fireman who sleeps in the fire station only needs to pop down to London for two days a week to pick up his £20-30K.  In many stations fire fighters' shifts have even been altered to make it easier for crews to commute from homes in other parts of the country.  Nearly one in three live in cheaper housing areas.   Not surprisingly 40 people apply for every vacancy and jobs are often passed down from father to son.   Nor that for 25 years the fire brigades union has banned overtime.  They’ve got other jobs to go to when they clock off! 

The firemen’s restrictive practices go back a long way.  In the 19^th century London firemen slashed the hoses of new steam driven pumps, preferring to carry on with inefficient but labour-intensive hand pumps.  For much of the 20^th century admission was restricted to ex-sailors, and even now fire stations are run like ships, kept cleaner than most hospitals, manned by “The Watch” which can never be reduced, and send two engines to every call, however small or trivial.    Racism and sexism are endemic. Currently the service is 99% male and 98.5% white.   Even the police are more gender and colour blind. 

It is probably too much for Tories to argue that in opposing this strike they will, in the long run, help the firemen.  However, reforming firemen's working practices will help other genuinely badly paid workers, such as nurses, teachers and factory workers in areas of high house prices.  It will help women and members of ethnic minorities get access to better paid jobs, and reduce racism and sexism in society.  Now there’s a message for Iain Duncan-Smith to run with. 

Jim Thornton. Nottingham 16 Nov 2002

Update 30 Nov 2003

One argument for high pay for firefighters is the danger of their job.  This graphic is interesting.   

From The Times