Skip to content or view screen version

Fire strike called off

Marxist_Mike | 11.12.2002 17:43

Firefighters' leaders have suspended the eight-day strike due to
start on Monday.

But the executive of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has set a new date
for a 48-hour strike on 27 January.

The third walkout was set to last until Christmas Eve, but has been
called off to allow further talks aimed at resolving the pay dispute
to take place.

Local authority employers are due to be at the conciliation service
Acas on Thursday.

FBU General Secretary, Andy Gilchrist, warned at a rally at the
weekend if the government had the "reckless audacity" to intervene in
the dispute again, the strike would go ahead.

It blamed the government for the last strike going ahead because of
its veto of a deal between the local authorities and the FBU.

This which would have meant 16% pay rise with some of the extra money
coming from the taxpayer.

The government said anything over 4% would have to be paid for
through modernisation.

The final conclusions of an independent review of the fire service by
Sir George Bain are due to be published on 16 December.

Further industrial action is planned for January, February and March
of next year.

Marxist_Mike

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

Well their battle's lost anyway!

11.12.2002 19:38

The firefighters have lost their battle anyway. And by the way Marxist Mike you know fuck all about Marxism if you think that the firefighters dispute relevent to the class struggle! Marxist communism is not about workers being paid highewr wages but about workers having democratic control and planning over all the means of production, distribution and exchange!

Harlequin

harlequin you talk with your arse

11.12.2002 22:18

I simply entered this to see what the state of play is with the fire fighters strike. To me all strikes are important - those for more money because more money for fire fighters means more confidence for others to fight. Fighting means that people get a glimpse of their potential but also potential of our class as a whole. Thanks for the update Marxist Mike. Thanks for nothing Harlequin. Seems a shame as well that the T.U. leaders can backdate a strike to 27 January giving Blair a restbite.

nick

with all his talk

12.12.2002 00:25

of bringing the goverment down, Guilchrist frightened himself or had the frighteners put on him.
Hence the sudden pullback
After all a regime that cares not a jot for the sanctity of human life, wont let some little union boss pull 'em down

dh

Shorter strikes are the way to go

12.12.2002 11:32

This is much more sensible: shorter strikes are much more effective. Long strikes play into the hands of the bosses as they can quickly sap morale and the workers can very easily be starved back to work. The IWW came to this conclusion a long time ago. Now we need to start building maximum solidarity to make sure the FBU leadership holds firm. If the FBU takes strike action we need to be out in town centres all over the country with the firefighters, collecting money and offering them all the support we can muster.

Short strikes over a longer timeframe also mean that the army will be tied up for a prolonged period thus helping to prevent the Bush/Blair slaughter in Iraq.

an injury to one

What a sad state of affairs

12.12.2002 11:35

Well its been called off again! what the fucking hell is the fbu exec playing at? have they lost their bottle, have they no stomach for it, or as john fucking monks and the rest of the tuc bastards put pressure on gilchrist to give peace a chance because tony is very upset with them and might not invite them to downing street for a drinks party plus monksy might not get a knighthood! it does make you wonder does it not

che guevara ghost
mail e-mail: asallycom01@yahoo.com

more info

12.12.2002 12:02

more info/reports from The Paper You Must Not Read:

SW
- Homepage: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1830/sw183009.htm

its harlequin who knows nothing about marx

12.12.2002 13:10

since harlequin sees fit to condemn the firemen, perhaps we should criticise his 'philosophy'. it is HE who knows nothinbg about marx. he merely repeats old common-scoialist, never having read anything by marx. for example his previous gem ''under socialism , all workers should be paid the same''. this is erroneous. marx never talks in such terms, rarely using the concept of ''equality''. in a socialist system, people would generally receive what they need in life, in return for contributing what they can, which is quite different, but then marx made a point of being quite different to most of the other socialists of his day

zuer kritik