Paying the firefighters’ ransom will only encourage others to strike
Friday 29th May 2009, 3:41PM BST.
‘HELD to ransom’ was the headline in last Tuesday’s Press. By the end of the day it seemed the ransom had been paid in full and the hostage released. Everybody heaved a huge sigh of relief and life started getting back to normal. Giving in to extortion is always the quickest way to resolve such situations, but at what a dreadful long-term cost.
Stretching the Press’s metaphor, take a look at those countries where kidnapping for ransom is endemic. It is always in cultures where the normal response is to cough up. Why hold somebody for ransom unless experience tells you the cash will be handed over? In this case the ransom is rumoured to be £120,000 but our leaders can’t confirm how much of our money they’ve handed over because the extortionists haven’t given them permission to do so.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this dispute, one thing is clear, the escalation happened when the deputy industrial disputes officer referred the matter to an independent tribunal.
That is exactly when all fire cover was removed and the airport closed down. The firefighters, having previously agreed to resolution by a third party, seized their ‘hostage’, causing huge grief and collateral damage. Now that action has been rewarded, heaven help us.
The dangers of giving in to industrial strong arm tactics should be well understood by anybody who remembers the UK in the 1970s. There was a string of damaging industrial disputes. I am not suggesting a Thatcherite response, but we need to learn the lessons of history. Otherwise, with public money very tight and plenty of potential flashpoints, we are in not just for a winter of discontent but years of it.
Of course, the union insists all the blame for this week’s shameful events sits squarely with the Public Sector Remuneration Committee. They’ve seized on suggestions from others that the PSRC should be wound up. That’s not surprising – unions never harbour warm feelings towards those resisting their demands.
If they’re getting no joy from those on the other side of the table it’s an obvious tactic to try to change the ‘opposition’. That, too, has been given to them as a reward for striking.
They’ll have been encouraged in their attacks on PSRC by some States members who sent that committee in to bat and then sniped from the boundary. This is unforgivable. There is a strong case for changing the way public sector pay agreements are reached, but that needs proper, calm reflection, not a snap judgement in the heat of a dispute.
The States has given the PSRC the role of negotiating on its behalf. It’s a difficult and thankless task, and until the system is changed it should be allowed to do the job without being stabbed in the back.
That means all other deputies, from the chief minister down, should keep their noses out of pay negotiations.
Calls to return to work are fine but any involvement in discussing deals just encourages a divide and rule approach from the unions.
For Deputy Gollop to text Radio Guernsey on the morning the airport was closed saying ‘PSRC has had its chips’ was appalling. What greater encouragement could the union want to play hardball?
States members should have let the independent tribunal reach a binding settlement before rushing to judgement in this case. Now that has been torpedoed by the unions, who never wanted it, and the chief minister.
The next stage has to be a full review of this whole debacle by the Scrutiny Committee.
In the longer term, the States should dust off the late Professor Clarke’s proposals for independent public sector pay panels.
Coupled with a ‘no industrial action’ clause for key public workers, this system would remove much of the potential for damaging stalemate.
Instead of calling in an independent third party when bilateral talks break down, such a system involves them from the outset.
A dispassionate panel of arbiters consider the competing claims from the unions, the Treasury and the employing department.
The aim is to achieve fairness, affordability and the ability to recruit and retain.
Such a system works well in the UK, where a lot of heat has been taken out of public sector pay negotiations, and damaging disruption to public services has been reduced.
It could work here too, but that debate is for another day.
In the meantime, let’s hope that nurses, teachers and other vital workers have the decency not to exploit the States’ obvious weakness.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
I simply don’t believe you, Mr Roffey. If your case that this is a ‘floodgate opener’ is correct then why don’t all public services strike all of the time? Could it be that most will tolerate real pay cuts year on year because of the unreasonable calculation of inflation because they are dedicated? And there you are begrudging them (or at least saying it was a disaster for the tax payer) when RPI went negative for having a few percent added.
People seem convinced they can have their cake and eat it. £120k to keep the airport open and to ensure retention for 12 months while a proper deal gets sorted seems small beer to me, considering the nonsense around runway lengthening (are we to up our category cover? – from which staff if they all leave?) and overblown waste solutions (why won’t people listen to the ex peoples panel or G-CAN?).
Report abuse
Arnald as I made clear in today’s press I have no inside knowledge of the rights or wrongs of this dispute. What I do know is that if either party felt agrieved, or if no meeting of minds was possible, then there was a long established remedy in the Guernsey’s Industrial Disputes Law. That is for the matter to be refered to an independent tribunal. This system was put in place precisely to avoid industrial action which just harms innocent members of the public and our economy.
This dispute had been refered to such a tribunal, and its findings would have been legally binding. If the firefighters felt the PSRC was being so unreasonable they should have relished the chance to lay their case before such a tribunal. Instead they acted as if they were being asked to drink from a poisoned well.
The men may or may not have a strong case – that is not the point. The point is that instead of using the civilised avenue available to persue it they took action which caused huge distress and suffering. By rewarding that action the States has sent out the message loud and clear that this is the way to get what you want.
I accept the ministers found themselves between a rock and a hard place and I can see the argument for getting the airport open at all costs but the long term consequences are dire. It is also hugely unfair on caring groups of public sector workers who will never take such action.
Report abuse
Good post Mr R
i totaly agree.
Report abuse
Mr Roffey
So true, but so sad.
“Panic affects the ability to think reasonably”
Report abuse
Mr Roffey,
Could you tell me why 2 and a half years of talks could go on if there was not a strong case? Could you explain why a 6 month cover period was paid for along with yet another independant report to tell us that the psrc are non productive and they are responsible for surpressing the entire public sector employee’s? (they then failed to implement the findings of this report).
Can you explain that within the 6 months they only turned up 3 or 4 days before the agreement ended to inform us it was going to ignore all the findings and facts within this whole facade?
Can you answer why they then registered a dispute (other than because they can’t make a decision) which was over turned as it was a management issue which they should have known?
What about another 3 month period of cover to come back with a pay decrease at the end of it and then register yet another dispute despite knowing that it was still a management issue?
How about the fact that management had a structure in place to address retention similar to what has been awarded yet ignored it and silenced the psd from interfering to which we obtained a copy?
No dispute second time around (what a surprise).
So whats left? well quite simple really, one states body to fight it out against the other (i don’t think so) at a tribunal as its not the fire fighters problem that staff are leaving left right and centre!
Then comes the straw to break the camels back!!! How about we employ 3 surplus staff instead of addressing the problem at a cost of 160k per annum which includes the wage, training and fire kit etc…. These men can sit on station until more and more continue to up and leave!!!
The other alternative was to bring over uk staff. Well this is a unite unit of locally qualified men who would not of allowed this to happen. It is again avoiding the problem and at what cost? 3 weeks to familiarise, kit, re-location package including rent allowances, up-heavel of family at what cost.
Mr Trott has prevented current staff from leaving and saved 40k in the process not to mention countless costs to the public and business community! Not to mention the 263k per year being flushed down the pan with the retention issue already!!!!
Can i just add that we did not strike as we had a duty to continue to provide fire cover for the entire airfield, frieght sheds, control tower building and terminal, not to mention to be on hand to respond to any medical emergency(which includes 900,000 passengers passing through each year), provide fire cover for all urgent medical flights, not to mention the day release medical patients and to be on hand for air search if so needed!!
So to end that is a very brief assessement as you will appreciate considering that this took over 2 years to come to a head. With regards to the firefighters, well patience is a virtue but this was taking the p*!s. Enough was enough of these bully boy tactics.
Lets not forget that all manual workers went out in protest last year (Our pay deal was ongoing and never got settled) its just a shame that we do unfortunately have the most immiediate impact. Belive me this was a last resort and we are not proud of this.
Do I dare go into the fact that the nurses, Police etc all have to look else where to recruit staff. Does it not occur that the money would be better directed to the problem as well, rather than pass it to others who are not committed to the future of the Island. Most of these people arrive at huge costs, collect their recruitment packages, all adding to far far greater than to pay the current and previous staff who would of stayed if the retention issues had been looked at! Well nice one hunter adam, keep ignoring this and close down a few more wards!!!!!!!
Report abuse
Mr Roffey – Could you please explain “but the long term consequences are dire” in more detail please.
Report abuse
Peter Roffey
Because of the States negotiating team, the sirport fireservice has been losing a high proportion of staff over the last three years. Why do people leave their jobs? Surely they have been acting exactly how most of the commentators have been angrily frothing at the mouth would want them to. “If you don’t like it, get another job.”
What, exactly, has been the upshot of that?
The precious ‘professionalism’ as you highlight has introduced a sense of no hope, no future and a lack of care in a job that demands those very qualities. They have introduced the sense that their employers do not and will not support the basic social infrastructure these workers maintain. If the PSRC was so ‘professional’ you’d think that it would have recognised that its confrontational tactics would lead nowhere. This has all the hallmarks of a group of poorly paid essential workers at the end of their tether. Not some scheme to cripple the government. Independent tribunals are all well and good, but where was the collective bargaining? Why had two previous reports crticised the PSRC position?
The cost of living, a function of policy decisions as well as market forces, has forced many people out of vocational or public service jobs because they simply cannot support their families/themselves.
Do you not think that these long term consequences of rapid economic growth, the competition of finite human resources and an intractible mindset that blindly believes the myths peddled about Unions being anarchic and selfish, will be any less ‘dire’?
Let’s look forward to a transparent, independent enquiry, expose the flaws on all sides and learn from those mistakes. There is absolutely no reason that this needs to be a trigger for mass strikes and untold chaos.
Report abuse
Cliff – because the States has now indicated clearly that industrial action, which causes hardship and upset,will be rewarded out of panic.
Arnald – You may well be right that the PSRC had been unreasonable – like most people I simply don’t know. What is puzzling is that if the union/men realy believed that, then they should have been keen to involve a fully independent third party who would have found in their favour. Instead they have done everything they could to avoid it, including closing the airport and causing huge damage. To the outsider this is powerful, circumstancial evidence that they were unsure of their case. Either way the action taken when there was a civilised way to get a fair resolution to the row is unforgivable. Particularly as it was in breach of a promise they has signed up to agreeing to go to a third party if no agreement could be reached.
Report abuse
More weasel words from geoff. You did go on strike, you did collect your£4,000 ransom demand, it was never about retention and recruitment, and it was always about pay.
More errant nonsense from comrade Arnald, especially: “…the myths peddled about unions being anarchic and selfish….”
In this particular case the the Unite union in the form of Red Ron and his merry men have shown themselves to be exactly this.
Only the firefighters and their tiny band of supporters from the Torteval Popular Front see things otherwise.
Report abuse
Guernsey Law says of The Tribunal Hearing
“A Tribunal will be appointed under the Law to hear and determine the complaint.
In order that both parties have an equal opportunity to put forward all the relevant matters in the dispute, it will be necessary to hold a Tribunal Hearing. Witnesses may be called by either party, or by the Tribunal, and may be put on oath in order to help establish the true facts of the case. The Hearing will be held in public.
The Tribunal will consider all the information provided by the parties to support their case, whether this is oral or written, before making a decision and/or award.
If either party fails to attend the Hearing, the Tribunal may still hear the case and make a decision and/or award”
Instead we have industrial anarchy and an inflation busting payment.
At least the PSRC managed to get agreement to go to arbotration. The Public Works / Emergency Panel agreement just adds 12 onths of uncertainty.
Peter Roffey is right in stressing why the action of the firefighters is unforgivable “Particularly as it was in breach of a promise they has signed up to agreeing to go to a third party if no agreement could be reached”.
I note in this mornings “talk in” it was claimed the arbitration clause was illegal because it hadn’t been signed by the union.
I take it that the firefighters will be repaying the extra money they received from this illegal contract.
Somehow I doubt it.
Report abuse
I guess the main difference between the ff and the other larger public sector groups is that it is not as easy to replace them as there is not a wealth of unemployed and trained ff waiting in the UK or elsewhere to be shipped in. They are also a small group of people who had no choice but to continue working many hours of overtime or they could have stopped the flights years ago – why doesn’t Peter Roffey acknowledge this? Something must have happened last Monday evening during their meeting with the PSRC for them to suddenly decide to strike after all this time. I am sure that they will be putting their side of the debacle and then the public and the politicians will have the full story and can make up their mind as to whether they had fair recourse to take the action they did.
It wasn’t long ago that the manual workers at the hospital walked out – the only difference was that other people could do their jobs in the interim. The Civil Service Union rep has also come out and said the PSRC are past their sell-by date. The milk retailers also had a long drawn out dispute with the States.
Local nurses have arguably been treated poorly for years. Result: many more nurses having to be employed from the Uk or further afield and a huge rise in agency nurses together with beds being closed. Compare the costs of pay and conditions with those of a local nurse and you will find a huge disparency. The Sates have always ignored this assuming that local nurses don’t need the large bonuses available to entice others here for a year or two as they have nowhere else to work! WRONG! There is a regular number of them leaving to work in the private sector but the States ignore this. Statistics can be made to say anything.
The same with other public sector workers be they qualified tradesmen i.e. plumbers, carpenters, electricians, accountants, IT, managers or manual workers. Many of these jobs used to be done by locals up to about 10 years ago but they have slowly been replaced either by private contractors or licence holders. The cost are higher as they are all entitled to extra benefits and housing allowances etc – but no doubt some creative accounting will paint a pretty picture. Public Sector workers are getting a raw deal.
Guernsey PLC needs to start becoming self sufficient – with stakeholders who really care about the island and are not here to do a job and then leave. Unfortunately the private sector is still a far better employer. Privatise the airport, implement a no-strike clause and perhaps it will run more efficiently – like Guernsey Electricity and Guernsey Post. The states remain the main shareholder but for the workers their pay and conditions have improved – we have to ask why they can do it but the States cannot?
Report abuse
Dear Molly,
I’m not sure how often I should repeat the same basic point, so I’ll make this my last posting, unless the thread goes in a different direction.
You effectively ask why I won’t acknowledge what a poor deal the FFs have had for years and the strength of their case. The answer, which I’ve given several times, is “because I simply don’t know”.
I do know two things. Firstly that there was clearly an unbridgable gap between the FFs and the PSRC. Secondly that there were two ways to resolve that dispute.
1.Take industrial action and cause untold damage to Guernsey and huge distress to ordinary members of the public.
2. Go to arbitration and, if needed, a tribunal where an independent third party would hear both sides and make a fair and binding settlement.
I also know that the second route is not only better for Guernsey, and the established remedy in the island’s industrial disputes law, but that the FFs had agreed to it and even taken money in return for that promise
A tribunal would have reached a definitive settlement as opposed to the current situation where the paying of “danegeld” has not resolved the dispute but merely stuck the lid back on the pressure cooker for the time being.
I am certainly not “anti-union” and consider them an important part of our social fabric. I am also no blind supporter of the PSRC having argued against its establishment 6 years ago. I think this type of bilateral “free collective bargining” has the inherent danger of conflict and wanted a more modern approach.
My point is not over the merits of either side’s stance but over the way the union prosecuted its case. I do think it was unforgivable and unecessary and should not have been rewarded.
I recognise the very difficult position the states were in once the airport had been closed but that should have been identified as a possibility and addressed with contingency plans when the first industrial action took place in Feb. I can only imagine that the States simply didn’t believe that the unions could possibly act in such a truely dreadful way. Admit it – what they did was unforgivable.
Report abuse
Mr Roffey,
I would have agreed with you that this crumbling of stamina on the employer’s side would seem to give rise to concern that others will see the weakness and exploit it.
However, I now read with interest that in fact the deal that was finally agreed to was the original deal that was rejected by the Fire Fighters 3 weeks ago. If this is true then it seems to have been the Fire Fighters who crumbled – I suspect under public pressure (which they clearly mis-judged as I suspect they thought they had public support. Ironically they might well have been right until the strike).
Therefore are your concerns well founded or mis-informed?
Regards.
Report abuse
Mr Roffey i so agree with everything you have said.
Report abuse
Mr Roffey
Your final paragraph sums things up so well “I recognise the very difficult position the states were in once the airport had been closed but that should have been identified as a possibility and addressed with contingency plans when the first industrial action took place in Feb.
I can only imagine that the States simply didn’t believe that the unions could possibly act in such a truely dreadful way. Admit it – what they did was unforgivable”.
Talking about we will have a Plan B is too little, too late. As you say the problem that materialised last week should have been identifed by February, at the latest.
If the doomsday scenario was so awful it is no excuse of the Policy Council to say it was the fault of the PSRC.
Where was the risk assessment?
Report abuse
Dear Peter
I am no expert either but my understanding of things from what i have read in the media is that until the ff went on strike the industrial disputes officer was saying there was no industrial dispute! The question of whether what they did was legal or not still has to be answered – i always thought that notice had to be given before a strike was called. I do think it was very unfortunate and did untold harm to Guernsey, but the union official should be held to account if there was any wrongdoing. Was it unforgivable? That is a very strong emotion – they did allow the flights with medical patients on to take off so they were not entirely hard faced. Personally Murder is the only thing i think is unforgivable; on the other hand if i had been going on holiday i would probably feel differently, although most of us are used to allowing extra time in case of unforeseen circumstances like being fog bound for a day or two.
Now why the powers that be decided to pay them all £4000 each in order to go back to work immediately is something that they need to explain – that does seem like a lot of money. Whether LT turns out to be the modern day version of King Aethelred ‘the unready’ remains to be seen. What cannot be argued is that it got the airport working again against a backdrop of possible chaos for days or weeks.
Let’s hope that he has a firm promise that they will not strike again and that their grievances will be dealt with properly, within a given time frame, instead on dragging on for another year with the same arguments being ping-ponged across the table.
Do you wish you were still in the States so you could be part of the process??
Report abuse
DS: Just to correct you. It was actually the Firefighters that put forward the offer of £4,000 to the PSD/PSRC a few weeks ago and it was they who rejected it, not us. As I understand it I think they were even given the option of phasing it in with increments over a few years depending on how long each Firefighter had been in the job, thus reducing the immediate cost, but I would have to check to see if this is totally correct.
Report abuse
Geoff, how would you propose to stop qualified fire fighters from the UK being brought over?
Report abuse
“The other alternative was to bring over uk staff. Well this is a unite unit of locally qualified men who would not of allowed this to happen”
Evidence of far too much power. Who do these Unite monkeys think they are?
Report abuse
Nat, I may be wrong but,
1:-Unless the States have done an about turn, to the best of my knowledge a fully qualified airport fireman who wanted to return to the island was refused a licence (within the last twelve months) as job was deemed not essential.
2:-Unite members would support other airports, so I would expect UK firemen would not arrive if there was any form of dispute that involved local fire-fighters.
Report abuse
ah but Rocky, it wasn’t a dispute was it? The FFs just wanted to be able to spend more time with their families. So there would be no reason to stop UK fircrew coming over as it would achieve exactly that.
Report abuse
Rocky, thanks for your reply. Typical that the States is too short sighted to give a fireman a licence.
I wasn’t aware that UK airport firemen were also Unite members.
Report abuse
4 thousand each public support nil .
Report abuse
I do not often agree with you Peter, but it was good comment from you.
The best comment that l have heard, after our weak CM, gave in to blackmail.
After this fiasco our CM should have his passport taken away, and the cheque book should be locked away safe.
I do not want him going around the world, at my expense, signing away and buying things in my name.
Report abuse
Come back Peter Roffey I say,it certainly would have been an interesting year with him in the States, I have had a few difference of opinions with him myself but at least you get it as it is.And he sticks to what he believes in.Don’t go too far Pete I think you maybe needed in about 3 years.
Report abuse
I thought I’d take a leaf out of the AFF’s book.
After getting no payrise this year, working odd hours and wanting to spend more time with my family I went to my employer and said I was going on strike.
Which I duly did.
My ex-employer has wished me well in any future endevours and hopes I enjoy the extra time with the family.
Report abuse
Hang on a minute! When Peter Roffey was the Minister of the Board of Health he was always saying that he supported his staff and thought they had good arguments for pay rises etc but that the service was disjointed as the PSRC were the ones with the purse strings! The other thing is, i listened to Tony Spruce on the Sunday ‘phone-in saying that now the ff have been given a 20% pay rise then all other public sector workers will expect the same. Maths isn’t my strongest point but surely if £4000 is 20% then their salary was £20,000 – not much a wage for professionals (I know their shift pay brings it up but that should not be counted in basic salary).
From what we have been told by SM who is a firefighter ( see link by SM on 1 June at 9.25 am):
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/05/26/held-to-ransom/
these talks have been ongoing for 2 years! How would most people feel if they had been trying to get around the table and do proper negotiating with people who refused to listen, insisted on sitting in a different room, and kept harping back to the good old days 10 years or more before. Things change; people retire or leave; recruitment and retention becomes difficult as better paid jobs are available; jobs change; responsibilities change; work/life balance becomes important as people get married and have families.
Reading his post has made me realise that the PSRC are well beyond their sell by date and the fact that things will have to change now should be welcomed. No one should be expected to be on-call for an indefinite period. The CM did not give in to blackmail; he listened and then he conferred with the emergency powers authority and the PSD and got the firemen back to work for another year whilst they thrash out a deal. Lets hope that this time whoever is doing the negotiating listens to all sides. The ff cannot expect to get everything they ask for but protected time off should be guaranteed. What a lot of members of the public seem to be unaware of is that these ff have been keeping the airport open for 2 years by goodwill; goodwill that saw them willing to be called in at very short notice during their time off. The only time the airport shut (apart from last Monday evening/Tuesday morning) was when there was adverse weather. On a few occasions there was a drop in category meaning the bigger planes could not land – again that was due to a shortage of ff cover (annual leave, training etc) – not a strike.
Be interesting to hear what people have to say once they have read the link. I was surprised by some of the things I read. How many reports do the PSRC want before they listen: no doubt the one that agrees with what they think – but i think they may be waiting a long time.
Report abuse
Gilthead
That made me chuckle :-) and such an accurate description of the real world that the majority of us inhabit.
Report abuse
Salaries in all sectors and at all levels should be public knowledge. It is the only way to ensure fair pay negotiations, be they union-driven or individual, and to make the job market transparent.
The idea of salary secrecy, even within companies, just promotes envy and victimhood.
Report abuse
Arnald – back in the real world employers primarily pay their employees what they can get away with – i.e. as little as possible.
The incentive being that if you work hard and perform well you get rewarded for it.
Sadly that is not the case in the public sector (in many instances anyway).
Report abuse
Gilthead you are right ‘sadly it is not the case in the public sector’ but then again the benefit of working for the States is early retirement with a final salary scheme paid for out of the rest of the (real world) working population’s wage packets.
Report abuse
Halfmanhalfbiscuit: (love the name by the way).
The final salary scheme is not the golden egg you seem to think it is – except maybe for the very high earners! Also States Employers have to pay a substantial percentage of their salaries into the pension scheme and it is not early retirement for all but a few who can retire age 55-60 with a percentage of their pension.
If high earners in the private sector invested their bonuses and over 10% of their salary, then when they retired they would have nice pension too! I would hazard a guess that a lot more high earning finance sector people retired early than those that work for the States. If working for the public sector is such a great job then why do they have to keep recruiting from the UK and further afield?
Report abuse