Who Is Concerned about Safety?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Firefighters’ Struggle:
Who Is Concerned about Safety?

TUC General Council Statement on the Fire Dispute

Conclusion of Non-Aggression Treaty between DPRK and US Called For

Asked on Thursday if the Prime Minister were hopeful that some kind of settlement in the firefighters’ dispute might be slowly approaching, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson ingenuously said that, at this stage, it was largely a matter for the Fire Brigades Union. The government stood ready to discuss safety issues with the FBU if the industrial dispute went ahead, he said.

Questioned the previous day as to whether the Prime Minister had said that he would allow the military to cross picket lines, the Spokesman said that the Prime Minister had underlined that the government was keeping the matter under constant review. It had also to be considered whether sending in the army to retrieve the necessary equipment for training purposes would inflame the situation, he said. Questioned as to whether the military and the Navy had their own fire services, he said that as he understood it, the MoD's equipment was very different from the modern fire engine.

Andy Gilchrist, General Secretary of the FBU, accused John Prescott and the government of trying to morally blackmail the union into calling off their series of strikes by raising the prospect of firefighters not attending major disasters. He said that ministers had conned the public for weeks that the country would be able to cope if the Fire Brigades Union went ahead with the walkouts before finally warning about safety. Andy Gilchrist said that the FBU had been absolutely open and honest with the public over the dispute for months.

Andy Gilchrist emphasised: "If we are forced to take industrial action, then of course the issue of safety becomes paramount, and I find it almost unbelievable that it’s only yesterday after weeks of silence the government bothers to phone us up and ask us what on earth are you going to do if you go on strike? We expressed our concern for weeks and months about the issue of public safety, and what we’ve only sought to do throughout the period is to have the ability to negotiate a take home pay of £8.50 an hour for people who are prepared to risk life and limb. And it’s only yesterday that the Government phone up and finally admit to us that their alternative arrangements are frankly wholly inadequate, and in some way wish to blackmail us into assisting them."

The FBU General Secretary told Sky News: "I just find it just simply incredible that the Government up until yesterday has been prepared to try and con the public that in fact everything was going to be OK if we went on strike. Yesterday they confirmed for me it wasn’t."

It was not until September 5 that Nick Raynsford, the minister responsible for the Fire Service, intervened with the promise of an independent review under Sir George Bain. The FBU in the circumstances are refusing to co-operate with the review.

Andy Gilchrist and John Prescott, however, are now to hold confidential talks, partly brokered, it is said, by the TUC, according to TUC sources. The talks will cover public safety measures as well as pay, it is reported. A senior figure involved in the discussions is reported to have said: "There are clearly ministers in government, Prescott in particular, who would like to still find some way out of this." But Andy Gilchrist emphasised that the FBU would not be discussing the Bain review with the government.

On the issue of safety, Bob Crow, General Secretary of rail union RMT, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he would not rule out a ballot being called. "Workers should not place themselves in danger, and if they feel they're in imminent danger they should ask to go to a safe place of work," he said. TUC guidelines say that if an individual employee decides he or she is unhappy working in an environment for safety reasons, they are perfectly entitled to walk out.

Bob Crow said that London Underground had not convinced safety representatives it would have adequate cover in a fire strike. The RMT made clear it would ballot for strike action if disciplinary action were threatened against any of its members who refused to work on safety grounds. A spokesman for train drivers union ASLEF said that it was 100 per cent with the RMT.

The lecturers’ union NATFHE is asking branches whether colleges will be safe for disabled students and staff in the event of a blaze. The GMB union said that nuclear and other industrial workers might not feel safe enough to work.

However, Downing Street gave warning that it would not hesitate to use the laws banning secondary strike action, but the unions insisted that this would not cover individual members with legitimate personal fears. John Edmonds, the General Secretary of the GMB union, referring to the TUC statement on the firefighters’ dispute, said that the statement showed that the trade union movement was standing shoulder to shoulder with the firefighters.

It is undeniable that the government has adopted the stance of blackmailing the firefighters over the issue of public safety. At the same time, it is trying to maintain that for other workers to refuse to work in potentially dangerous conditions would invoke that anti-trade-union law on secondary picketing. As the FBU is pointing out, the government is giving the appearance of only just having woken up to the question of safety, and the Prime Minister has even raised the issue of the military confronting firefighters’ picket lines in order to requisition their fire-engines and other equipment, despite the fact that only the firefighters are trained to use them. All in all, the government is doing everything to blacken the name of the firefighters and to criminalise their struggle. It is also invoking the spectre of the 1984-5 miners’ dispute from a Thatcherite perspective.

The firefighters’ union has so far been undeterred by the accusations that for firefighters to take a stand in defence of their interests is to put themselves at odds with the general interests of society. Such accusations in fact expose the nature of a society where workers defending their rights is held to be contrary to public interest. What kind of society is this, and who is really concerned about public safety? It cannot be said that the firefighters in their stand are wilfully jeopardising safety and the future of the firefighting service. Just the opposite. It is incumbent on the firefighters and other workers to strengthen their unity, and further develop the discussion on what kind of society is necessary both to defend their interests as a collective and safeguard the future of all social services and programmes.

The following statement was released on October 22.

The General Council reaffirms the unanimous resolution adopted at Congress calling for a new deal for the UK’s fire-fighters.

The General Council recognise and respect the overwhelming strike ballot result carried by the FBU last week.

The FBU are seeking a negotiated settlement with the fire service employers which recognises the professionalism of our fire-fighters and that is the way forward to a settlement of this dispute. The Bain enquiry, which does not now carry the FBU’s confidence, has not been helped by the Chancellor’s remarks today about public sector pay. There is an urgent need to clarify this if the inquiry is to retain any shred of credibility.

Moreover some other statements by Government Ministers about "criminality" or "crushing" the FBU are monumentally unhelpful.

The General Council will be briefing all affiliates on the dispute and the FBU’s case and will be looking at all ways of helping the FBU nationally and locally. Individual unions will be encouraged to approach employers to carry out risk assessments.

The General Council have today established a Contact Group with the FBU. The Group will comprise of TUC President Nigel De Gruchy, John Edmonds, Dave Prentis, Bill Morris, Maureen Rooney, Tony Dubbins and the General Secretary. Its terms of reference will be to keep in close contact with the FBU about the support needed to bring the dispute to a successful conclusion, and to consider the relevance of the TUC guidelines on essential services with the FBU.

The Government should be in no doubt that there is full support in the General Council and among the public for a fair and decent deal for the FBU.

We call on the fire service employers and Government to respond constructively.

We are reproducing the text of the statement of the DPRK as regards the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, Pyongyang, October 25, 2002

A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea today released a statement as regards the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. He said:

New dramatic changes have taken place in the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Northeast Asia in the new century.

Inter-Korean relations and the DPRK's relations with Russia, China and Japan have entered a new important phase and bold measures have been taken to reconnect inter-Korean railroads which have remained cut for over half a century, settle the past with Japan and do away with the leftovers of the last century.

The DPRK has taken a series of new steps in economic management and adopted one measure after another to reenergize the economy, including the establishment of a special economic region, in conformity with the changed situation and specific conditions of the country.

These developments practically contribute to peace in Asia and the rest of the world.

Almost all the countries except for the United States, therefore, welcomed and hailed them, a great encouragement to the DPRK.

It was against this backdrop that the DPRK recently received a special envoy of the US President in the hope that this might help fundamentally solve the hostile relations with the US and settle outstanding issues on an equal footing.

Regretfully, the Pyongyang visit of the special envoy convinced the DPRK that the hostile attempt of the Bush administration to stifle the DPRK by force and back-pedal the positive development of the situation in the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Northeast Asia has gone to the extremes.

Producing no evidence, he asserted that the DPRK has been actively engaged in the enriched uranium programme in pursuit of possessing nuclear weapons in violation of the DPRK-US agreed framework. He even intimidated the DPRK side by saying that there would be no dialogue with the US unless the DPRK halts it, and the DPRK-Japan, and north-south relations would be jeopardised.

The US attitude was so unilateral and high-handed that the DPRK was stunned by it.

The US is seriously mistaken if it thinks such a brigandish attitude reminding one of a thief crying "stop thief" would work on the DPRK.

As far as the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is concerned, it cropped up as the US has massively stockpiled nuclear weapons in South Korea and its vicinity and threatened the DPRK, a small country, with those weapons for nearly half a century, pursuing a hostile policy toward it in accordance with the strategy for world supremacy.

The DPRK-US agreed framework was adopted in October 1994, but the US has been deprived of the right to talk about the implementation of the framework since then.

Under article 1 of the framework the US is obliged to provide light water reactors to the DPRK by the year 2003 in return for the DPRK's freezing of graphite-moderated reactors and their related facilities.

But only site preparation for the LWR was made though eight years have passed since the DPRK froze its nuclear facilities.

This will bring the DPRK an annual loss of 1,000 MW(E) in 2003 when light water reactor no.1 is scheduled to be completed and of 2,000 MW(E) over the next year when under article 2 of the framework the two sides are obliged to move toward full normalisation of the political and economic relations. Over the last eight years, however, the US has persistently pursued the hostile policy toward the DPRK and maintained economic sanctions on it. The former has gone the length of listing the latter as part of the "axis of evil".

Under article 3 of the framework the US is obliged to give formal assurances to the DPRK against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the US. However, the US listed the DPRK as a target of its pre-emptive nuclear attack.

Under article 4 of the framework and paragraph (g) of its confidential minute, the DPRK is to allow nuclear inspections only after the "delivery of essential non-nuclear components for the first LWR unit, including turbines and generators" is completed. But the US has already come out with a unilateral demand for nuclear inspection in a bid to convince the international community of the DPRK's violation of the framework.

This compelled the DPRK to make public the confidential minute for the first time.

The US has, in the final analysis, observed none of the four articles of the framework.

It is only the US that can know whether it had the willingness to implement the framework when it was adopted or put a signature to it without sincerity, calculating that the DPRK would collapse sooner or later.

However, the Bush administration listed the DPRK as part of the "axis of evil" and a target of the US pre-emptive nuclear strikes. This was a clear declaration of a war against the DPRK as it totally nullified the DPRK-US joint statement and agreed framework.

In the long run, the Bush administration has adopted it as its policy to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike at the DPRK. Such moves, a gross violation of the basic spirit of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, reduced the inter-Korean joint declaration on denuclearisation to a dead document.

Its reckless political, economic and military pressure is most seriously threatening the DPRK's right to existence, creating a grave situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Nobody would be so naive as to think that the DPRK would sit idle under such a situation.

That was why the DPRK made itself very clear to the special envoy of the US President that the DPRK was entitled to possess not only nuclear weapon but any type of weapon more powerful than that so as to defend its sovereignty and right to existence from the ever-growing nuclear threat by the US.

The DPRK, which values sovereignty more than life, was left with no other proper answer to the US behaving so arrogantly and impertinently.

The DPRK has neither need nor duty to explain something to the US seeking to attack it if it refuses to disarm itself. Nevertheless, the DPRK, with greatest magnanimity, clarified that it was ready to seek a negotiated settlement of this issue on the following three conditions: firstly, if the US recognises the DPRK's sovereignty; secondly, if it assures the DPRK of non-aggression; and thirdly, if the US does not hinder the economic development of the DPRK.

Nowadays, the US and its followers assert that negotiations should be held after the DPRK puts down its arms. This is a very abnormal logic.

Then, how could the DPRK counter any attack with empty hands?

Their assertion is little short of demanding the DPRK yield to pressure, which means death.

Nobody can match anyone ready to die. This is the faith and will of the army and people of the DPRK determined to remain true to the army-based policy to the last.

The position of the DPRK is invariable. The DPRK considers that it is a reasonable and realistic solution to the nuclear issue to conclude a non-aggression treaty between the DPRK and the US if the grave situation of the Korean Peninsula is to be bridged over. If the US legally assures the DPRK of non-aggression, including the non-use of nuclear weapons against it by concluding such treaty, the DPRK will be ready to clear the former of its security concerns.

The settlement of all problems with the DPRK, a small country, should be based on removing any threat to its sovereignty and right to existence.

There may be negotiations or the use of deterrent force to be consistent with this basis, but the DPRK wants the former, as far as possible.