Should The Armed Forces Have a Union?

I have been keeping my head down for a few days, taking a bit of time to answer a question put to me by one soldier following my recent blogs on the Deepcut and Biddiss situations. Fooboy asked me in response to my blog entitled “It should never have come to this” whether it would have been any different if there had been a British Armed Forces Federation and whether I thought that such an organisation should exist. Good question and one that as I say has caused me to pause for thought. I am not one of those who think it is a good idea for an army to have a union. In the heat of battle, orders need to be given and reacted to in an instant. There is no time to sit around and argue the toss. No time for a federation rep to come in and say well I’m sorry we don’t think it should be done that way. “Orders is orders,” they say, and for good reason. But there has been such a palpable failure of leadership within the army that – with a number of key riders - I have reluctantly changed my mind.

I agree with Fooboy to the extent I don't think that in the Biddiss case it would have stopped the situation occurring initially but the federation would have been able to intervene after the event and things might have been different. Remember the Biddiss case went right to the army board and no-one got it in the neck for that. If the army board is incapable of doing the right thing then frankly someone else has to see that it is done and a federation is the only way. If it hadn't stopped the Biddiss situation, the chances are that it might have made the powers that be more cautious in future and prevented something similar happening again.

But I am afraid I would draw the line at immediate federation intervention during war-fighting operations. I remember the strange situations that pertained in the Danish and Dutch armies during the Cold War. I’m afraid I couldn’t get my head round soldiers who wore hairnets and questioned the decisions of officers and senior NCOS. I have nothing against senior NCOs and warrant officers occasionally putting subalterns straight, out of sight of the lads, and even the odd major being steered in the right direction by his sergeant-major. Sometimes it needs to be done and a good senior NCO knows when and how to do it. But you have to have some sort of structure that people a) have faith in and b) will abide by when the chips are down.

The first point though is crucial and I see no reason to have faith in people who can defend the behaviour of those in charge in the Deepcut, Breadbasket, Majir al-Kabir and Biddiss situations because, as we have discussed previously, every one of those situations showed those in charge of soldiers behaving in a way that was just inadequate to the situation, or was - to use an old-fashioned phrase that ought to have some resonance still with those who went through Sandhurst – unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. 

One word of warning. Don’t expect too much of a federation. If it is set up it will have to be a robust organisation, able to accept that with regard to operations it can only act after the event and that it will have to deal with deceit and underhand behaviour at every turn. Some sections of the MoD still act as if crown immunity still exists and the MoD has the right to do pretty much what it likes in order to keep the budget as tight as possible - as we saw with the war veterans invalided out, some of whom are still having to fight to get back the tax they should never have paid in the first place. Nor do senior officers take kindly to being told they are in the wrong.

But given the events of the past four or five years, which aside from all of the above included soldiers being sent to war without the proper equipment while senior officers said everything was fine, I have to say I think that probably it is time to have something like the police federation, not a union with powers to strike or veto operational orders, but a body that is doing what a number of officers have palpably failed to do, looking after the interests of the men under their command.

Comments

[dave]

Dear MICK,

Fascinating how one's opinions can evolve over time !

The Biddiss case is one of outright contempt and disregard by officers for their men, and the fact that the Army Board supported the officers ,Right or Wrong, shows that we need some countervailing power that can face down the generals, and bring some justice, even posthumously.

I had earlier believed that a more independent SIB could be part of another answer, but they are still eventually subject to the chain of command.

[Chuck Unsworth]

A number of points here. Mick mentions 'the odd major being steered...etc'. I, too, have seen a large number of very odd majors, some of whom needed steering right off the map. However....

Much as I fear that our armed forces command structures are decaying, and that the quality of command is, frankly, appalling in some areas, I'm not convinced that a Federation or trade union would actually have had any real impact on these repeated injustices, except by bringing such matters into the public domain. If these issues are to be retained within barracks walls - or MOD walls for that matter - it will be difficult to ensure justice. And justice must also be seen to be done, hence our judicial system - threatened as it is - still clings to the vestiges of that tenet.

What was needed in the Biddiss case, for example, was rapid understanding of the situation and equally rapid, humane, treatment of the Corporal and his family. In my time the RSM (and his wife!) would have been in the forefront of dealing with that, and the CO would/should have used every means possible to expedite matters. But the matter would have very quickly travelled up the line from junior NCO to Senior NCO and then on. Apart from the basic human response to one's fellow man, there was a pragmatic (maybe cynical) understanding that soldiers with family concerns at the forefront of their minds were hardly the best people to have around one in difficult situations - peacetime or wartime.

I have had some experience in setting up branches of trade unions and have chaired a staff association for a large organisation. During that chairmanship we decided that we had no choice but to change that form of staff representation to a trade union, largely because we believed that the association had no real powers, and that a trade union might have the skills and knowledge which we lacked. 'Management' was terrified, mounting a campaign to disrupt and stifle the whole process. Eventually the branch (of a Civil Service union) was formed, and things settled down.

In essence, the routine of trade union representation of staff (or service personnel) could be incorporated. But, and as Mick rightly highlights, there will be moments where negotiation or the discussion of grievance may not be immediately appropriate. I think that the dividing line falls somewhere between the theatre of war/military action and peacetime operations. This would need careful consideration and negotiation.

I do not think that matters arising during the course of a military (wartime) action should simply be set aside. Some means of examination should be available to the parties, to be instigated at a more convenient moment. What used to be referred to as 'Commonsense' should apply.

There are much broader questions as to the form of representation and the likely procedures. However, these are probably easier to identify and negotiate than one might expect. The question which is most difficult is how much support is there within the armed services for such a structure?

[Julian Foster]

I disagree with your comments that a Federation would not have helped prevent the biddiss case. The crux of his case was a single piece of paper that his OC needed him to sign. That single piece of paper was connected to an abused manning policy called Manning Control that Officers was forced to get soldiers to sign on the orders of the Army Administration agency who were under orders of the Budget account holds at Whitehall, who under orders of the likes of Mr Brown at No 11. Manning Control ensured 22 year Pension commitment was halved and also ensured a limited number of JNCO/SNCO were serving at any one time in the regular Army this saved on the wage bill. This was at a time when Commanding Officers were struggling to maintain full manning Strength. We only have to look at 1 Para,s Deployment to Kosovo who needed 150 members from 3 Para to deploy C Coy and more importantly Sp Coy. who ironically, I believe from my reading Cpl Biddiss was part off.

Now, had there been a Federation at that time Mr Brown would have known this and considered the negative publicity this decision would have had. OK Manning Control was possibly not thought off by No 11 but im sure the Civil servant who was tasked with saving money on both the Manning budget and Pension Budget would have thought or at least considered the advice from the Chief of Staff very hard before extracting Manning Control from the Pages of Queens Regulations as the answer to Labours Stealth cuts on the Armed Forces,

Cpl Biddiss would have had the opportunity to free phone the Fed and the wheels would have started to turn. As you pointed out

Quote:
I wrote the first story on “manning control” on 29 April 2002. It was swiftly followed up by other newspapers and the MoD protested repeatedly that there was nothing wrong with the system. But when the Government was asked last October when the last incident of “manning control” took place, it said in April 2002. They knew they were acting immorally, and arguably illegally, and the minute they were found out they stopped it.

A Federation would have got this policy abuse in the open, back when Cpl Biddiss was first having his problems back in 99.

The Army Board would never had found in favour of the Biddiss case in any way even when some of the damming evidence seen on the TV and press of fraudulent cover up by senior officers on the matter was staring them in the face. Biddiss was redressing a policy that MOD claimed to the hilt was not illegal. Who holds the Members of the Army Boards Pensions?
That would not be the case with a Federation.

As SunJock posted the Biddiss case would be a strong case to put forward to the Defence Committee as one case that smacks in the face of all the reasons put forward by General Sir Mike WALKER during his last session with the committee for not having a Federation. This should be proposed to the Members as a test case on what a Federation could have done to prevent such things from happening again. If Sir Mike can sit there and be asked questions, why not getting some points of view from the NCO at the next hearing?

[Rebecca King]

I'm a final-year journalism student and currently researching the role of blogging within the public sphere for my dissertation.
I've been reading this blog for a while now and I've chosen to use it as one of the sample blogs for my content analysis.
As part of my research, I need to get 50 copies of my questionnaire completed but I want to specifically target the readers/bloggers of UK-based current affairs/political blogs. I would be extremely grateful if any of the bloggers who use this site or any other current affairs blogs could take the time to complete my online survey.
Many thanks,
Rebecca King

[dave]

JULIAN
Sir Mike Jackson, not walker ?
Same difference, you make powerful points.

We know that many CO's opposed this manning control rubbish and robbery. A Federation would have helped those, good officers, to resist ; and many would have whistle-blown to the Fed.

WHEREVER there is excessive Power, countervailing power is needed. Fullstop.

chuck -- no idea of how much support, since the macho self-image so often cultivated inside the army in particular will be against. But this is not a question for a referendum inside the forces. Parliament rules, just.

[Alan]

They will have something to be really upset about when they read this from Northern Arizona University.

The use of depleted uranium in munitions and weaponry is likely to come under intense scrutiny now that new research that found that uranium can bind to human DNA. The finding will likely have far-reaching implications for returned soldiers, civilians living in what were once war-zones and people who might live near uranium mines or processing facilities.

Uranium - when manifested as a radioactive metal - has profound and debilitating effects on human DNA. These radioactive effects have been well understood for decades, but there has been considerable debate and little agreement concerning the possible health risks associated with low-grade uranium ore (yellowcake) and depleted uranium.

Now however, Northern Arizona University biochemist Diane Stearns has established that when cells are exposed to uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells acquire mutations, triggering a whole slew of protein replication errors, some of which can lead to various cancers. Stearns' research, published in the journals Mutagenesis and Molecular Carcinogenesis, confirms what many have suspected for some time - that uranium can damage DNA as a heavy metal, independently of its radioactive properties. "Essentially, if you get a heavy metal stuck on DNA, you can get a mutation," Stearns explained. While other heavy metals are known to bind to DNA, Stearns and her team were the first to identify this characteristic with uranium.

Depleted uranium - what is left over when the highly radioactive isotopes of uranium are removed - is widely used by the military. Anti-tank weapons, tank armor and ammunition rounds are just some of the applications. "The health effects of uranium really haven't been studied since the Manhattan Project (the development of the atomic bomb in the early 1940s). But now there is more interest in the health effects of depleted uranium. People are asking questions now," Stearns said.

Her research may shed light on the possible connection between exposure to depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome, or to increased cancers and birth defects in the Middle East and Balkans. And closer to home, questions continue to be asked about environmental exposure to uranium from mine tailings; heavily concentrated around Native American communities. "When the uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns said. Estimates put the number of abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation in Arizona at more than 1,100.

[Linda Jack]

My view has always been that forces personnel needed proper representation - as someone who has not only served in the army (where my attempts at collective bargaining lead me to be threatened with a charge of mutiny!), but as a union lay official, I honestly believe that the forces would gain by having such representation. In civvy street a well run union contributes to the success and well being of the organisation to which its members belong. Any resistence is clearly based on an old fashioned deferential attitude which fails to acknowledge service men and women's human rights.