Campaign for a Democratic FBU

There is something very very wrong about employees of the union and /or consultants /service providers paid by the union (who will have been engaged by choice of the general secretary) promoting one of the candidates in the general secretary election for one of the candidates (i.e. MW). The consultants/service providers in question may or not be contracted to carry out work currently ... But where there is no current contract in place ...all consultants hope to be engaged again in the future. An example is Neil Findlay of Unity Consulting Scotland which lists the FBU as one of its clients. Unethical.

I've always understood the wisdom in that old dictum that a leadership position is like the hand being removed from a bucket of water. An incumbent so often declares however that catastrophe will result if they are replaced. Whether it's a general election or a general secretary election - that refrain is repeated time and again.⬇️

This is a long post concerning the election for FBU general secretary. Not suitable for doom-scrollers!Sorry about that! A few points on a recent article by Workers Liberty's newspaper.. the link is in the WL's post. (Note: this is another example of MW and his team using the media because his campaign is flailing) It is authored, it says, by an "FBU member". Why anonymous? Probably because it's written by a hack not a member of the FBU. It says: "Wright states he has internationalist and Labour orientations, although there is only passing mention of either in his main campaigning materials." Not entirely inaccurate... But .. such material is pretty scarce in MWs as well. It reads (re SW): "In a highly polarised and divided internal context, seemingly the whole union right is lined up behind him. I don't mix in right wing circles, presumably WorkersLib does. Or more likely, for them ...any smear will do. Again re SW: "His pitch and slogan, “time for change”, in practice represent a vehicle for a political and industrial project defined as “bread and butter”, anti-politics. His stated core principles — safety, unity, representation, accountability and a political member-driven union — do not add up to much." Well that just about sums up Workers Liberty! The issues cited are precisely what trade unions are for and why members join and stay in them. The way I have always viewed it is this: trade unions are kind of subconsciously 'allowed' by majority of members to carry out internationalist work as a kind of 'trade'.. if the union works hard on the Terms and Conditions the union can do its internationalist solidarity stuff. The article says: "FBU members in Workers’ Liberty are campaigning for Matt Wrack..." All six of them presumably. Of MW it goes on to say: [He] has a track record of internationalism and campaigning against anti-union laws, against misogyny and against racism." Well, it's the FBU and many of its officials including Steve Wright who are internationalist and have campaigned consistently against the trade union laws. MW, they say, has great record of anti-misogyny. If that is the case why then has the recent FBU- commissioned report suggested that under his leadership, the union has a poor record on sexism and misogyny? MW, they say, has great record on anti-racism. Members should speak to officials who attended this year's FBU conference on that matter. It is noticeable that BAEMM is supporting SW. And why is MW being cited in two separate complaints being taken to the certification officer? And why has the union just lost a case that went to the certification officer because MW and Ben Selby ignored FBU rules by excluding a black applicant from membership..because the applicant has had the audacity to have complained to another official concerning the racial abuse meted out by a different officials who was a friend of MW, BS and their clique? (their friend subsequently admitted to the racial abuse at both and FBU hearing and an FRS hearing.) The article says "The importance of Wrack’s and the left’s equalities work has been thrown into light by the recent barring of former union Executive member Grant Mayos, a Britain First supporter and until very recently a key figure on the union right." Putting aside that the FBU does not have a "union right wing' (and that Mayos could never be described as a key figure), MW had no role WHATSOEVER in the investigation or the decision-making concerning Mayos. The people who made that decision were EC members. The 'author writes: "While Wright himself says the right things, given the bullying and anti-democratic track record of some in his campaign his election would represent a significant slide to the right in terms of the union’s democratic culture and lead to political drift." The 'author' clearly is guided by a personal maxim which evidently revolves around that facts and evidence should never stand in the way of an unsubstantiated slur. The article says "An informal left grouping dissolved when Wright split from Wrack." Laughable really. The 'informal left' remains firmly in place and undissolved. What actually happened was that two EC members retired and the small rump of MW supporters took themselves out of the picture Having had to admit that SW has majority support revealed in the 415- 178 contrast in nominations, WorkersLiberty writes: " ... a core problem is that the left is not well organised and there is no rank-and-file movement." Let's translate that... WorkersLiberty asserts that there is no rank and file movement in the FBU Absolute tosh. There is...It's called branch organisation and it's practised day in and day out up and down the UK in fire service workplaces .... But .. WorkersLiberty chooses to ignore it. Symptomatic of the contempt for FBU democracy, the union's lay officials, and the members themselves, the author falsely writes: 'While there is a strong chance that many of Wright’s nominations are little more than a rep with a pen..." And later in the same paragraph, it reads as a kind of twisted version of some lines by Bertolt Brecht, the author writes that the unwelcome outcome of the nomination stage "...shows the FBU left is in need of rank-and-file renewal" Absolutely bonkers... It might as well read: 'Because the views of the rank and file don't suit Workers Liberty, the Workers Liberty declares that the rank and file should be dissolved and replaced by a new one" !!!!!

The FBU GS election is essentially an election that will decide whether the union returns to being a membership-orientated trade union where, with Steve Wright as GS; A. the rank and file have their views represented by the layers of lay officials and B. This culminates in the control of the policies are under the control of the executive council, itself a committee of lay officials OR, ALTERNATIVELY, where, with MW as GS, C. the union accelerates in its nosedive to become a union totally dominated by the 5 full time officials with MW as the puppet master that has utter contempt for the lay officials in the EC, at regional and brigade level. So far in this election the lay officials, with the members support at branches have given the clearest of signals that the trajectory needs to change..and the union turns away from the self-absorbed and self-promoting mandarins at head office. The rank and file have rejected domination by the 5 well-paid full-time officials. This was the clear message sent by the return of the 415 branch nominations for Steve Wright in contrast to the 179 for MW. The crucial thing is for members to now vote for Steve Wright who is the champion of the members.

The Matt Wrack election campaign has at last exposed the true nature and operation of FBU Head Office's attitude to the union's primary structures and the people who work tirelessly for members. Matt and the head office team, essentially, have exposed the fact that it is at war with with the union itself. If Matt is re-elected this will deepen. Head office considers itself a law unto itself. Some of have us seen at close hand this developing over the last 20 years and reaching new lows since 2020 In each region, having worked for many years at the coal-face, in order to carry out his or her function the EC member is on full-time release. In each region there is at least one other regional official on full time release from their FRS. In each FRS, there is at least one brigade official on full-time release. All of them are paid for their FRS rank/role. The union pays an honorary stipendiary. All regional and brigade officials have their shoulder to the wheel. They are only paid for the 42 hour week. They get no additional salary-hike for their work at weekends and in the evenings. They are operational, albeit released from ordinary duties for so long as the members in the relevant territory elect them to office. In terms of the election - no official can tell any member how to vote. Members vote at home. What officials are able to do - is to recommend to members who to vote for. Head office officials i.e. GS, AGS and the national officers (the "FTOS") are entitled to what they earn. They are contractual entitlements. The pay rates are: GS: Area Manager B plus 20% flexi AGS: Area Manager A plus 20% flexi Nat Offs: Group Manager B plus 20% flexi London Weighting is paid to those whose office is based in London. A car (or alternative) is provided They are uniquely Full Time Officials (hence the FTO). They are not on release from standard duties by FRSs. They are employees of the FBU. But it is a real liberty for any FTO to lie, mislead and misrepresent the status of other officials within the structure. In fact it's an abuse of both trust and authority

I came across this tweet from the Daily Mirror and thought I must have missed an all members' circular. Having checked the FBU website...there hasn't been one. The membership should not be finding out about any key issue at any time via the media. If nothing else, it's disrespectful. The issue of pay is a pressing one. No doubt about that. It is an issue which must be addressed and not long-grassed. But there are pay claims and then there are claims. The Mirror article went out 7.28pm yesterday (Sunday) with details of the pay claim. It also says that a letter will be going to the employers "tomorrow" (i.e. today, Monday 9 December). The Mirror article will have been picked up by the LGA's and the governments' media-scourers. Essentially then, the negotiations have been conducted on the FBU side by foghorn diplomacy rather than engaging in a professional manner. It's not an unreasonable assumption that the article has been checked and verified with head office. The article's byline says it's authored by Kevin Maguire... the associate editor well-known for his thoroughness and competence. Articles such as this arise from approaches made to the media, not vice versa. So this claim is an intention. If that is the case then the intended pay claim is extremely poor for two main reasons: 1. It says the intended claim will be "up to 5%". 'Up to 5%' means anything between 0.1% and 5%! That would be daft. The national employers could offer 1% and legitimately say that they have met the pay claim lodged by the FBU. 2. The union's policy remains seeking a broadening of the firefighter's role. Unless that critical policy has been dropped or is not being pursued during the negotiations for 2025-26, essentially MW has broadcast to government, employers and chiefs that the union would entertain a broadening of the role for no more than 5%. I am well over a year into retirement, I know, but unless there has been a massive change in the ambition and opinions amongst the membership, a max. of 5% for a whole tranche of new work might be considered acceptable by those who agreed that this should be the claim.. but I am pretty sure not by the membership. I wonder if MW has been telling members at branches and officials at committees during this election campaign that this is the claim he has in mind.