The union has a proud and illustrious history. Since 1918 — the year of its founding as the “Firemen’s Trade Union” — it has played a hugely significant role in delivering better conditions of service for the nation’s firefighters and improving public safety. It is in no small measure thanks to the FBU that firefighters have been able to enjoy decent pay and pensions, collective bargaining rights and enhanced health and safety standards, while the public has benefitted from the union’s tireless campaigning for robust fire cover provision in local communities.

The union plays a big role, too, in the wider labour movement, always punching above its weight and standing alongside other workers in the fight for a better, fairer society.

I was proud to join up as a member of the union when becoming a professional firefighter 24 years ago, and prouder still to be elected to represent my work colleagues as an official in various positions for much of the period afterwards. Trade union activity, as it does for most officials, became a major part of my life.

More from this author

The betrayal of Paul Embery

By Kate Hoey

So when, in 2019, I lost my job with the union — at the time I served as a full-time official on its national executive — it came as a bitter blow. My great crime was to give a speech at a rally called by the non-partisan, pro-Brexit campaign group Leave Means Leave. The rally took place on 29 March of that year — the date that the UK had been scheduled to leave the EU until, controversially, the Theresa May government and Brussels agreed to a delay. Other speakers were drawn from across the political spectrum and included Kate Hoey MP, the chair of Labour Leave.

There were thousands in attendance at the rally from all walks of life and of all politics and none. Some were rank-and-file trade union members. For others, this was their first public demo.

I attended the event in my own private time (it took place on a Friday evening) and spoke in my capacity as the national organiser of Trade Unionists Against the EU, a marvellous little group of principled activists with which I have been involved for some years. There was no mention whatsoever at the rally of my role as an FBU official, nor of the union itself.

That evening, however, and without prior notice to me, the general secretary of my union — an old friend but a vociferous opponent of Brexit — issued a public statement condemning me and others from the Left who had spoken at the rally as a “disgrace to the traditions of the labour movement”. I didn’t need a crystal ball to tell me where this was heading.

Within a fortnight, I had been placed under investigation. Four weeks after that I was suspended. And within two months, I was in front of the union’s executive council defending myself against a raft of disciplinary charges — some of which were completely unrelated to my appearance at the rally but had plainly been dredged up for good measure by the senior official conducting the investigation. As a 20-year trade union official, I had represented countless members in the disciplinary arena and knew a witch-hunt when I saw one.

More from this author

How patriotism came home

By Paul Embery

In working as a columnist for UnHerd, I had apparently prejudiced the interests of the union. In sharing a platform with those who would normally be considered political opponents, I had allegedly breached a union policy stipulating that FBU officials must not engage in joint campaigning with traditional opponents during the referendum (that the rally in question was taking place three years after the referendum and was therefore plainly beyond the scope of the policy seemed to cut no ice with my accusers). In publicly criticising leaders of the labour movement for their attempts to subvert the referendum result, I had again apparently acted in a way prejudicial to the union.

It was this final charge that led to my being removed from my role and banned from holding office again in the FBU for two years. I received other, though lesser, sanctions for the other “offences”.

The backlash across the FBU and media was fierce. Many people understood acutely that the sacking of a union representative for expressing a personal view in his own private time conflicted with the deep and longstanding traditions of the labour movement. Wasn’t our movement supposed to defend the principles of free speech and the right to dissent? Did we no longer tolerate the expression of alternative views? As the Labour MP Jon Cruddas argued in my defence:

“The history of the movement in Britain has always been one of debate, argument and civil disagreement. Union members have always been allowed to argue for positions contrary to their union’s own view, as long as it is made clear that they are representing themselves or another organisation. The Left’s traditional commitment to freedom of expression, and indeed the necessary right to express personal dissent, demands that union officials are not held captive to their union’s line at all hours of the day and in all situations.”

He was right, of course. But I reminded people that this was a new age, one in which a different kind of Left was increasingly imposing a rigid conformism in the public square — especially on Brexit, where things were presented as a struggle between good and evil. It seemed that my union leadership had fallen prey to this phenomenon.

More from this author

Labour isn't working

By Paul Embery

My internal appeal was rejected, but I chose to fight on. In February of this year, my claim for unfair dismissal came before the employment tribunal. The case was heard over three days. The union was represented by Oliver Segal QC, one of the country’s leading employment silks. I shudder to think how much was paid out in membership contributions to secure his services. I represented myself.

Judgement was handed down on 4 August. There it was on page one: “The claimant was unfairly dismissed under the Employment Rights Act 1996.” Judge Robin Postle did not spare the union leadership’s blushes. “It would appear right from the start of the investigation process conducted by the vice-president that there was an agenda to have the claimant removed” … “The investigation looked like no more than a witch-hunt, a fishing exercise” … “The tribunal overwhelmingly felt the matter was pre-determined” … “Quite how the claimant [in writing for UnHerd] had breached that rule was a mystery to the tribunal” … The union’s argument that a policy written specifically and exclusively for the 2016 referendum was still in force three years later was “a nonsense” … “How could any fair-minded member come to a reasonable belief on the facts that the claimant had committed any form of misconduct?”

An additional argument from the union — that my claim was invalid on the grounds that I wasn’t technically an employee of the organisation — was flatly rejected.

The ruling was a bittersweet moment for me. I am of course glad that, after two years, justice has finally been served, but I remain a proud member of the FBU and retain a deep affection for the organisation. It is filled with good people driven by noble ideals. It just happens that, on this occasion, they were badly let down by a leadership which tried to muzzle a dissenting voice and, in doing so, caused an awful lot of reputational damage. So, all things considered, I’ll not be popping any champagne corks.

Instead, I shall continue, as a rank-and-file member, to use whatever influence I possess to change the FBU for the better, and to support the union’s commendable campaigns to defend public safety and improve the working lives of firefighters. It is these things that brought me into the union in the first place. And, in the end, it is these things that matter most.

Wearing their primitive breathing apparatus sets, Fourt-Wells and Stocking were sent down into the acrid smoke with an instruction to locate the seat of the fire. They were never seen alive again. Their bodies were eventually found among piles of frozen meat packets and animal carcasses.

The incident became the catalyst for a powerful campaign led by the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) to modernise equipment and safety procedures. The union called for breathing apparatus sets to be equipped with low-pressure warning alarms and audible distress devices, and for a better system of monitoring firefighters while they were working in such hazardous conditions. The campaign was a success. Government and fire service bosses were eventually forced to concede that the demands were eminently reasonable. As ever, it had taken a tragedy to spark change.

More from this author

The town that should shame our politicians

By Paul Embery

The FBU’s campaign was a commendable example of a trade union looking beyond the battleground of pay, and lobbying for the safety of its members at work. 60 years after the event, I hosted proceedings as a plaque dedicated to the memory of Fourt-Wells and Stocking was unveiled at the spot where they fell. We will never know the number of firefighters whose lives were saved — and, mercifully, whose names it was never necessary to inscribe on such plaques — thanks to the union’s efforts.

Other trade unions can justly lay claim to having been instrumental in bringing about a safer working environment for those they represent. The annual number of workplace deaths has been dramatically reduced from an average of over 4000 at the beginning of the last century to fewer than 200 today. This is why anyone who tries to persuade me, a lifelong trade unionist, that unions have no business interfering in such matters is liable to get short shrift. History shows that trade unions are overall a force for good when it comes to safety in the workplace, and we shouldn’t forget it.

All of which brings me to Covid-19. At all times and on all matters, trade unions must strive to ensure their demands are measured and pragmatic. Crucially, union leaders must always seek to take their members — and, where possible, the public too — with them. This is even more the case when the issue at hand is one that is politically contentious.

In that vein, it is surely vital, when assessing how best to keep a group of people safe during these times, to start from the point of acknowledging that the virus poses a meaningful threat to only a small minority of people — almost exclusively those who are either elderly or suffering from underlying medical conditions, or often both. For the vast majority who contract it, Covid-19 is not a serious virus, let alone a killer one. Most will experience either mild symptoms or none at all. In fact, as of 16 September 2020, the number of Covid-related deaths in England involving individuals under the age of 60 and free from existing medical conditions stood at just 308. And, for several of these, it is possible that Covid-19 was not the thing that actually killed them.

Suggested reading

Has Covid become less dangerous?

By Tom Chivers

So it is against this background, and out of genuine concern for the credibility and reputation of the trade union movement, that I express alarm over the manner in which the leadership of some unions have taken unreasoned and insupportable positions in their approach to the virus.

Look, for example, at what is happening in our universities. Last week, the leader of the University and College Union (UCU) — which represents lecturers, academics and support staff — reiterated the union’s call for a ban on face-to-face teaching until the Government had curbed the spread of the virus. That the level of risk to those on campus is infinitesimal wasn’t enough to stop the demand being made. And given that universities are already in turmoil — as a consequence of mass self-isolation, threats of disciplinary action against those caught breaching social distancing rules, and the prospect of Christmas on campus, the demand, though not without its supporters, has caused exasperation among some students and members of staff.

Several universities, presumably motivated in part by an earlier threat by the UCU of strike action, have already switched to online-only teaching, leaving some staff feeling adrift and angry. A lecturer from a university in the Midlands told me this week of the deep sense of frustration felt by him and his colleagues after their impending return to physical teaching was abruptly blocked on safety grounds. Of eight members of departmental staff, only one had expressed a desire to avoid face-to-face lessons.

For most who do it, teaching is more than just an ordinary job or source of income: it is a vocation. Many educators feel that if someone is going to prevent them from doing what they love, there had better be a compelling reason.

Suggested reading

There is no student mental health crisis

By Louise Perry

Professor Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist who has attracted prominence and acclaim for her criticisms of the lockdown approach, believes those demanding a ban on face-to-face teaching have called it seriously wrong. “The risks are not sufficient to justify us not doing our duty — which is to teach our students. To not teach them is a dereliction of duty,” she told me.

Of course it is right that trade unions pay close attention to emerging risks and seek to shape any institutional response. No one could reasonably argue against robust measures to protect the genuinely vulnerable in any scenario. But what possible merit is there in a strategy that strives to keep healthy lecturers and students apart out of fear of a virus from which, should they contract it at all, the overwhelming majority — if not all — will make a full recovery?

After the Summer brouhaha over the question of whether and when children should return to the classroom — an unnecessary and near-hysterical ruckus in which the teaching unions this time had a hand — a similar excess of caution has infected our schools. Such is daily life now for many children, they could be forgiven for assuming that a world of facemasks, social distancing and relentless hand-washing was the natural order of things. Never mind the risks of contracting Covid-19; we are in danger of creating a generation of OCD sufferers who think the environment around them will always be fraught with danger. Again, the sense of panic has not been commensurate with the level of risk.

Suggested reading

Can university survive Covid-19?

By Gerard De Groot

On one level, the over-reaction of the UCU and others might be seen as entirely rational. After all, the Government and media have done such an effective job scaring everyone witless, those demanding the most draconian and extreme measures might genuinely believe they are saving lots of lives.

The brutal truth, however, is that one thing has been missing throughout this entire debate: proportion. Safety in the workplace, as anywhere else, should be about implementing sensible and proportionate control measures to alleviate risk. It is this principle which underpins health and safety legislation. Instead, we have arrived at a point where, for many in positions of authority, any risk at all is too much and, where it exists, drastic action is required to eradicate it. That attitude serves no-one. Society becomes afflicted by paranoia, and individuals lose their ability to quantify risk — an essential skill in the armoury of any human being.

The easy thing for a trade unionist like me would be to go along with it all. After all, as long as most union members are still drawing a salary, why should it matter?

Well, it matters because the education of our young is being harmed, not to say our economy devastated, livelihoods destroyed and civil liberties curtailed. And when unions themselves are part of a crusade whose demands are utterly out of proportion to the risk, it behoves those of us who care about the movement to warn them to pull back, lest they alienate large numbers of rank-and-file trade unionists and incite wider public scorn over “bloody intransigent unions”. What a tragedy it would be if so much of the historical good done by unions in preventing death and injury in the workplace was overlooked as a consequence of the overzealous and irrational demands of a handful of leaders.