BACK IN May, this blog criticised the FBU leadership over its handling of a pay offer from the national fire service employers. We highlighted how, on 25 April, literally within hours of having received an offer of a 4% increase – the very first offer made by the employers in the annual pay round – the general secretary, Matt Wrack, was informing members in a video that the executive council had already discussed the offer and had decided to hold an immediate membership-wide ballot with a recommendation to accept.
We argued that this rush to recommend the first offer amounted to a serious mistake. It was extremely unusual for any trade union to accept a first offer so hurriedly and with zero negotiation having taken place on that offer. As we said at the time:
“Considering that the offer was comprised of several different strands – and came off the back of year-long and complex discussions in a number of joint working groups – was there really no scope for further negotiation on any part of it? No room to refine, finesse or improve upon the offer in any way? No questions to be asked? No clarification to be sought? Not a single follow-up meeting required between the two sides?
“Most employers will make a first offer in the expectation that the union will push back and demand something better. So they generally leave themselves some wiggle room to improve upon their first offer – even if the further concessions are only marginal. That’s how negotiations tend to work.”
We also criticised the leadership for commencing the ballot before most members and officials had even received proper reports about the offer through the union’s official structures, including via its annual conference, which at the time was less than a month away.
We weren’t alone. The hasty decision to recommend acceptance was also publicly questioned by the union’s recently-retired assistant general secretary, Andy Dark, who, in a document published on social media, wrote:
“Most, if not all, of the public sector pay review bodies have been asked to provide their report/recommendations in May 2024. Accordingly, the 4% headline offer may have less appeal if one or more of them should recommend a higher amount.”
As it happens, the announcement of a general election delayed those reports by a couple of months. But now some of those pay review bodies have made their recommendations, and it is indeed the case that, in every instance so far, the recommendation is higher than the 4% that the FBU leadership was so desperate to grab.
The pay review bodies covering teachers and NHS staff, for example, have both recommended a 5.5% rise – almost 40% higher than the increase offered to FBU members – while, according to the Daily Telegraph, the police are set to receive an increase of almost 5%. A number of other pay review bodies are still to report, but it is entirely feasible that their recommendations will be in a similar ball-park to those made so far.
While the government has the final say on these pay increases, the signs are that it will support the recommendations of the review bodies. At the weekend, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, hinted to the BBC that the government would be keen to reach settlements and avoid industrial action.
Had the FBU leadership been a bit less impulsive, the recommendations of the pay review bodies could have been used as leverage in negotiations with the fire service employers. It would have been very difficult – almost impossible – for the employers to have offered less than what other public sector workers had been offered, and there is every chance that firefighters could therefore have stood to gain a rise of around 5.5% instead of 4% – a difference of £543 in the annual income of a competent firefighter.
In this context, it is now more obvious than ever that the FBU leadership’s rush to accept the employers’ first offer looks like a significant strategic blunder. Those responsible need to come out and explain the reasons behind their actions, and lessons must be learned to ensure it doesn’t happen again.