Subscribe to our Newsletter
|
|
|
Industrial relations 2008 |
|
|
|
Dennis Davis offers some insights on the relationship between employer and employee in the pre and post modernisation Fire and Rescue Service
DURING A RECENT LONDON VISIT I found myself confronted by a sea of white caps moving in a quietly dignified way through the capital. It was a protest by thousands of police officers who were dismayed that their arbitrated pay award had been in, their terms, ‘reneged upon’, because the public, in the form of the democratically elected government, said things had changed and the country could not afford that level of salary. This breach of understanding (accepting many of those more directly involved would say trust) posed the question in my mind, and I suspect in the minds of many others, of exactly what should now be our expectations for public pay policy.
After all, if those that protect the heart of central government and who cannot deny the use of their labour are no longer be sure about gaining objectively-analysed and agreed rewards, where does that leave every other public servant? There was a time, admittedly long gone, when lower public pay awards equated with stability of employment – so much so public employees had mortgages when their better-paid industrial counterparts relied on public housing. Several decades later, that notion has expired and been buried. Here some might cheer ‘good riddance’. This is not in an unmarked grave though, for there are far too many scars. It is a common grave however, since it also contains the ‘spiritual’ remains of certain jobs having a ‘vocational and public ethos’.
Peace in Our Time
Inaccurate, cynical and over generalised, as those last statements might be they do illustrate the enormous distance travelled by the FRS since the 1978 pay deal. And how what many saw as cornerstones in one of the oldest human relationships – work and reward – can shift. Global economics and political survival now weigh heavily on the work and reward equation rather than recognition and dignity.
This is not a blind contention to return to a lost paradise. There is no doubt FRS stability over 25 years came at a price, not just in economic terms but in service development. A little like any copper-bottomed solution we found ourselves eventually beached when the tide ran out. Negotiations, consultations and debates centred on peripheral needs and created unassailable bastions of no go areas rather than highly productive innovation. The effectiveness of a ban on overtime, retained duties and shift flexibility produced negativity in managers who either became resentful of the lack of exploitation of opportunities or so bureaucratically absorbed by the constant demands involved in challenging even the smallest issues of the status quo that progress was restricted. That said when the ‘peace in our time’ train finally hit the buffers, driven we should recall by a demand for a 39 per cent increase in boiler pressure, many were genuinely shocked and unprepared for what lay ahead. Some simply reverted to taking sides, re-entering the rhetoric of a class war, even though almost all FRS members had a similar background, whilst others thought tolerance and intelligent bargaining had been accepted and agreed principles for future relationships.
Vocal Advocates
However what everyone found out very quickly was that 2004 was to be far more about finding new footings and coming to terms with a radical agenda of change. What followed was a confusing period when no one was that sure who was in charge and even more worrying what was being paid for what. After all the entire plan for ‘life after Bain’ did not quite jump off the settlement pages.
So where are we five years on and more importantly where are we trying to reach in terms of FRS work relationships? After the euphoria of finding the new world disappeared, along with some of the more vocal advocates, there is still much to be done if a collective understanding, never mind harmony, is to be established. Whilst on the surface it appears the skirmishing parties are still out there probing and testing, there does also appear to be a more active and mature dialogue developing underneath. That can only be a good thing especially given that the public purse is again shrinking and public employers are facing increasing and varied service demands. Look outside the UK and we see the picture is broadly similar (remember New York and Chicago saying they were close to financial collapse) so this certainly is not a homegrown conspiracy. But it is important that what are genuine financial restrictions and service demands avoid becoming the code for seeking workforce domination and fear. Solutions, especially in difficult times require active participation by multi-skilled groups who are prepared to think the unthinkable and are not simply the preserve of a few – just as consultation is not negotiation.
The broader community, which half turned away in 2002, has also rebuilt many good perceptions of the FRS, aided perhaps by the FRS itself seeking to engage even more in reaching vulnerable and diverse communities. The firefighter still represents the selfless essence of public service and as a role model for a society that finds it increasingly harder to get along within itself, has few real challengers.
New Cornerstones
Depending on your industrial relations perspective the seventies were anarchy and the eighties reforming. Today it is suggested re-engineering has created less strident unionised workspaces with many tools to aid conflict resolution. Professionalism has rapidly expanded to help find routes through this difficult human resource territory, which is populated by increasing volumes of laws and regulations. So should we be pleased that three new cornerstones are in place – an opening dialogue, improved public perceptions and professional skills? Well, yes and no. I return to watching the police march and suggest their protest hints at something much deeper. If most industrial failures are about poor management or union intransigence/poor communications or misunderstood intentions/poor anticipation or clumsy responses, how have we not, in our informed way, already reached a collective FRS satisfaction? Managing when there is a surplus of job applicants and a changing workforce ought to be easier than having to fight for good applicants and retrain large numbers of staff. And organising workers when a collective dispute has settled the framework of the job should make things clearer.
Employers that are known as good employers always have a workforce that actively promotes their employer. Frankness, honesty, openness, fairness, trust, and common sense are the words often used to describe how these organisations work with their staff - or in short hand, recognition, understanding and dignity for the people involved. To misquote Vic Feather, a one time TUC General Secretary: “Industrial relations are better between consenting parties.” |
|
|
