Firefighter's Strike (UK)
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2me.html[^] Okay, I think this deserves a rant. I understand that they're pissed off, I understand WHY they're pissed off. I have (had?) some sympathy for their plight, though I would argue that a lot of people in the army get paid less than the firemen but they're not allowed to strike and if they're not happy, give it up and do a well paid job. Once there's no fire fighters, they'll have to increase wages and you have experience already. Striking is the lazy way out. And they must know they can't win. They must know that if the government gives in to a strike, memories of the 1970's Labour party will reemerge and Blair will be screwed for the first time since he took power. So WHY have two 48 hour strikes during the week before Guy Fawkes night? That is just plain irresponsible and reprehensible. And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2me.html[^] Okay, I think this deserves a rant. I understand that they're pissed off, I understand WHY they're pissed off. I have (had?) some sympathy for their plight, though I would argue that a lot of people in the army get paid less than the firemen but they're not allowed to strike and if they're not happy, give it up and do a well paid job. Once there's no fire fighters, they'll have to increase wages and you have experience already. Striking is the lazy way out. And they must know they can't win. They must know that if the government gives in to a strike, memories of the 1970's Labour party will reemerge and Blair will be screwed for the first time since he took power. So WHY have two 48 hour strikes during the week before Guy Fawkes night? That is just plain irresponsible and reprehensible. And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
I guess we have opposed viewpoints with this. I believe any employee has the right to withdraw their services, eg not go to work. Also they are free to influence others to follow their example. To withhold these rights is to return to slavery and feudal ownerships. Army and police etc, swear oaths of allegiance and are servants rather than free employees. From what I have seen of industrial relations a 9:1 vote like this means that the firemen are seriously upset and their employers have really let the situation get out of hand. This must have been a continuing case of deterioration for quite a while. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
I guess we have opposed viewpoints with this. I believe any employee has the right to withdraw their services, eg not go to work. Also they are free to influence others to follow their example. To withhold these rights is to return to slavery and feudal ownerships. Army and police etc, swear oaths of allegiance and are servants rather than free employees. From what I have seen of industrial relations a 9:1 vote like this means that the firemen are seriously upset and their employers have really let the situation get out of hand. This must have been a continuing case of deterioration for quite a while. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: I guess we have opposed viewpoints with this. I believe any employee has the right to withdraw their services, eg not go to work. I don't dispute that but having the right to and it being right are two different things. Any other time of year, I wouldn't have a problem with the strike itself, just the apprent hijacking of public property (the fire engines). But we're talking about a week when fireworks are in the shops and kids are on a high over Halloween. The week when dumbass punk kids think that the trick part of trick or treat means it's fine to stick lit fireworks through old people's letter boxes. The week when the whole country is full of fire, basically for the entertainment of kids. While it would appear that they've managed to keep the strikes away from "bonfire night" itself, at least 40% of the fires round here will be lit on the Saturday before, when the fire brigade are on strike. I never said they didn't have the right to strike, although striking because you're not getting a 40% pay rise IS holding the government to ransom (remember the government is the employer here). And again, they have to know they can't win. But this isn't about rights, it's about doing the right thing, and striking for four days during the week before bonfire night, the week when accidents and fires (especially involving the very old and very young) increase by some obscene percentage, is not the right thing, nor is it going to win them public support (which surely is the point of a strike when you're a public servant). Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2me.html[^] Okay, I think this deserves a rant. I understand that they're pissed off, I understand WHY they're pissed off. I have (had?) some sympathy for their plight, though I would argue that a lot of people in the army get paid less than the firemen but they're not allowed to strike and if they're not happy, give it up and do a well paid job. Once there's no fire fighters, they'll have to increase wages and you have experience already. Striking is the lazy way out. And they must know they can't win. They must know that if the government gives in to a strike, memories of the 1970's Labour party will reemerge and Blair will be screwed for the first time since he took power. So WHY have two 48 hour strikes during the week before Guy Fawkes night? That is just plain irresponsible and reprehensible. And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
£21k isn't such a bad wage. I'm not saying they don't do a great job, but there are a lot of people out there who would kill for that kind of salary. If you take a look at the statistics for the number of firefighters killed on the job every year, it's not as high as they would like you to think. It's just a job. It's dangerous, but hey, so is being an electrician or something. If 9-11 had never happened, they would have never considered it. They have taken advantage of the idea that the public now think more highly of them than before. I think "criminally irresponsible" is a great way to put it. I just hope they can sleep at night whilst on strike. Harsh words? Yes. Of course, nobody would dare to agree with me. :)
qwote undur construktshun!?!!
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2me.html[^] Okay, I think this deserves a rant. I understand that they're pissed off, I understand WHY they're pissed off. I have (had?) some sympathy for their plight, though I would argue that a lot of people in the army get paid less than the firemen but they're not allowed to strike and if they're not happy, give it up and do a well paid job. Once there's no fire fighters, they'll have to increase wages and you have experience already. Striking is the lazy way out. And they must know they can't win. They must know that if the government gives in to a strike, memories of the 1970's Labour party will reemerge and Blair will be screwed for the first time since he took power. So WHY have two 48 hour strikes during the week before Guy Fawkes night? That is just plain irresponsible and reprehensible. And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
The timing of the strikes is a bit messed up if you ask me. But considering I'm not from the UK and I haven't been there at that time of year then I don't know for sure how bad it can be... but if it's anything like the run up to halloween over here then I think kinda crap of them to be striking at that stage. I do agree with Colin that people should have the right to not go to work and to strike but I think a bit of common sense shoudl have been used here. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
£21k isn't such a bad wage. I'm not saying they don't do a great job, but there are a lot of people out there who would kill for that kind of salary. If you take a look at the statistics for the number of firefighters killed on the job every year, it's not as high as they would like you to think. It's just a job. It's dangerous, but hey, so is being an electrician or something. If 9-11 had never happened, they would have never considered it. They have taken advantage of the idea that the public now think more highly of them than before. I think "criminally irresponsible" is a great way to put it. I just hope they can sleep at night whilst on strike. Harsh words? Yes. Of course, nobody would dare to agree with me. :)
qwote undur construktshun!?!!
Simon Walton wrote: Of course, nobody would dare to agree with me I would. I was kinda avoiding the actual thinking behind the dispute to concentrate on the timing of the strikes. But yes, I think 21K is a decent wage for a job that most people with training could do. It's not exceptional, but it's above average. And am I wrong in thinking they get rent-free housing too? You're also correct that like any job (except in extreme cases), it's only dangerous if they do it wrong. The only reason we think it's so dangerous is because they save the lives of those in dangerous situations but those at risk aren't afforded the same protective clothing or training. And yes, your final comment is harsh but maybe that's why I find myself so angry about this. I've been brought up with an image of firemen as the most consciencious type of person and now I find that they vote so heavily in favour of a resolution that will put so many at risk. It sickens me to the core of my being and I really do hope that they personally feel any harm caused by this. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
The timing of the strikes is a bit messed up if you ask me. But considering I'm not from the UK and I haven't been there at that time of year then I don't know for sure how bad it can be... but if it's anything like the run up to halloween over here then I think kinda crap of them to be striking at that stage. I do agree with Colin that people should have the right to not go to work and to strike but I think a bit of common sense shoudl have been used here. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote: if it's anything like the run up to halloween over here Imagine halloween anywhere else (except in the states where it's a joy to behold) and throw in readily available fireworks in every corner shop. Of course they're not supposed to sell to kids below a certain age (can't remember whether it's 16 or 18) but most shops know that this age group is where the big profits are, and where they don't take advantage there's always some "adult" ready to bring in supplies. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2me.html[^] Okay, I think this deserves a rant. I understand that they're pissed off, I understand WHY they're pissed off. I have (had?) some sympathy for their plight, though I would argue that a lot of people in the army get paid less than the firemen but they're not allowed to strike and if they're not happy, give it up and do a well paid job. Once there's no fire fighters, they'll have to increase wages and you have experience already. Striking is the lazy way out. And they must know they can't win. They must know that if the government gives in to a strike, memories of the 1970's Labour party will reemerge and Blair will be screwed for the first time since he took power. So WHY have two 48 hour strikes during the week before Guy Fawkes night? That is just plain irresponsible and reprehensible. And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
These guys are angels compared to the tube drivers, who are just plain greedy, abusing the fact the people rely on them to get to work. And they strike if the the LU managment farts. Paul Riley wrote: And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Those things look like a joke. I bet I could pee more water on a fire than those things. Did you see - top speed of 30mph.:laugh:
-
These guys are angels compared to the tube drivers, who are just plain greedy, abusing the fact the people rely on them to get to work. And they strike if the the LU managment farts. Paul Riley wrote: And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Those things look like a joke. I bet I could pee more water on a fire than those things. Did you see - top speed of 30mph.:laugh:
Giles wrote: These guys are angels compared to the tube drivers, who are just plain greedy, abusing the fact the people rely on them to get to work. True enough, I guess. But people not getting to work isn't quite the same as people not living (or worse, IMO, having to live with crippling burn injuries). Giles wrote: Those things look like a joke. I bet I could pee more water on a fire than those things. Did you see - top speed of 30mph :-D I know. I did find it kind of amusing when the media started screaming about how they wouldn't be up to the job. Well, duh! Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2me.html[^] Okay, I think this deserves a rant. I understand that they're pissed off, I understand WHY they're pissed off. I have (had?) some sympathy for their plight, though I would argue that a lot of people in the army get paid less than the firemen but they're not allowed to strike and if they're not happy, give it up and do a well paid job. Once there's no fire fighters, they'll have to increase wages and you have experience already. Striking is the lazy way out. And they must know they can't win. They must know that if the government gives in to a strike, memories of the 1970's Labour party will reemerge and Blair will be screwed for the first time since he took power. So WHY have two 48 hour strikes during the week before Guy Fawkes night? That is just plain irresponsible and reprehensible. And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
Yep, it's bad, but it's worse that guys who risk their lives (and their families risk losing the main breadwinner) should feel this type of action is necessary. When it comes to work, I'm very right wing - I believe that anyone who can work, should. However, you have to pity them. The BBC say that they are asking for a 20% increase, but also that they have had no pay reviews for 20 years. Should they not have had at least 1% each year just to keep up with inflation? How accurate the BBC are on this I'm not sure of, but it does sound like a pretty horific pay scenario. :suss: Paul Riley wrote: And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? This does seem pretty crazy - perhaps it's a propaganda scam by the govt to make the situation seem worse than it should be. I'm sure the army guys can be trusted to drive the real fire engines :confused:
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator. - Marc Clifton
-
Yep, it's bad, but it's worse that guys who risk their lives (and their families risk losing the main breadwinner) should feel this type of action is necessary. When it comes to work, I'm very right wing - I believe that anyone who can work, should. However, you have to pity them. The BBC say that they are asking for a 20% increase, but also that they have had no pay reviews for 20 years. Should they not have had at least 1% each year just to keep up with inflation? How accurate the BBC are on this I'm not sure of, but it does sound like a pretty horific pay scenario. :suss: Paul Riley wrote: And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? This does seem pretty crazy - perhaps it's a propaganda scam by the govt to make the situation seem worse than it should be. I'm sure the army guys can be trusted to drive the real fire engines :confused:
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator. - Marc Clifton
Megan Forbes wrote: How accurate the BBC are on this I'm not sure of, but it does sound like a pretty horific pay scenario It's true but misleading. 20-ish years ago they striked and the deal they "won" was to have their pay linked to the wage of an average manual labourer. Thus their wage has changed along with the wage of the manual worker but it hasn't strictly been reviewed. And they haven't asked for 20%, many believe that 20% would be enough to swing the vote. The actual figure they've asked for is 40%. But they've been offered 4% because that's all the money that has been budgetted to the fire department this year. This already means there will be very little by way of improvement to the service itself (only standard repairs to buildings and engines). There is no more money to give. If it gets rebudgetted from elsewhere every government worker in the country will be out on strike by the end of the year. Remember the 70s? I don't remember it personally, I just no of the union control which led to stagflation (nearly impossible situation with rising inflation AND rising unemployment) which led to the Labour Party in an even worse state than the Tories are now. No matter what people say about Thatcher using North Sea Oil and/or the Falklands to stay in power, it was the fact that she crippled the unions that kept people voting for her. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
I guess we have opposed viewpoints with this. I believe any employee has the right to withdraw their services, eg not go to work. Also they are free to influence others to follow their example. To withhold these rights is to return to slavery and feudal ownerships. Army and police etc, swear oaths of allegiance and are servants rather than free employees. From what I have seen of industrial relations a 9:1 vote like this means that the firemen are seriously upset and their employers have really let the situation get out of hand. This must have been a continuing case of deterioration for quite a while. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
The main problem is that we can't afford to pay them more. We have said we will give them a 4% rise, and that alone will exhaust the funds available to the fire service as it is. To give them what they are asking would mean an increase in taxes of around (I believe this was the figure I heard) £15 a year. This is just for the fireservice - before long everyone would be jumping on and everything would collapse. We already live in a high cost society and give a large amount of our pay to the government for the social and public services - there is a limit to what we can afford too you know. The firefighters are whining about nothing and have no case in my eyes. A soldier who has just come back from Afghanistan can look forward to a possible trip to Iraq before the year is out to be shot at by a different bunch of guys waiving AK47's for a few weeks at a time before coming home for a fortnight and being sent off on yet another campaign in the name of free capitalism. These people get less than the firefighters currently do, and if you want me to choose between whose career has the most risk attached to it I will not be choosing the people who rescue cats out of trees and spray water on fires. :| In fact I wouldn't answer as I do not make judgements on the worthiness of such careers nor the people follwoing them, but you get my point hopefully. I don't see many firegfighters living in one bedroom flats above chip shops... I'll be damned if I am going to pay for their forty grand sports cars and expensive nightclubs. They already make more than most of the populous. :~ If there was a real legitmate cause for concern then changes would have already been made to compensate for them. These people are just getting greedy. If they want to withdraw there services because they think they are underpaid, then they can jolly well go and find a different career. They have a job with serious responsibilities towards the people who pay their salaries - us. If they screw with their responsibilities then we should have the right to screw with our responsibility to pay them in the first place. I am looking forward to living in anarchy.
David Wulff http://www.davidwu
-
The main problem is that we can't afford to pay them more. We have said we will give them a 4% rise, and that alone will exhaust the funds available to the fire service as it is. To give them what they are asking would mean an increase in taxes of around (I believe this was the figure I heard) £15 a year. This is just for the fireservice - before long everyone would be jumping on and everything would collapse. We already live in a high cost society and give a large amount of our pay to the government for the social and public services - there is a limit to what we can afford too you know. The firefighters are whining about nothing and have no case in my eyes. A soldier who has just come back from Afghanistan can look forward to a possible trip to Iraq before the year is out to be shot at by a different bunch of guys waiving AK47's for a few weeks at a time before coming home for a fortnight and being sent off on yet another campaign in the name of free capitalism. These people get less than the firefighters currently do, and if you want me to choose between whose career has the most risk attached to it I will not be choosing the people who rescue cats out of trees and spray water on fires. :| In fact I wouldn't answer as I do not make judgements on the worthiness of such careers nor the people follwoing them, but you get my point hopefully. I don't see many firegfighters living in one bedroom flats above chip shops... I'll be damned if I am going to pay for their forty grand sports cars and expensive nightclubs. They already make more than most of the populous. :~ If there was a real legitmate cause for concern then changes would have already been made to compensate for them. These people are just getting greedy. If they want to withdraw there services because they think they are underpaid, then they can jolly well go and find a different career. They have a job with serious responsibilities towards the people who pay their salaries - us. If they screw with their responsibilities then we should have the right to screw with our responsibility to pay them in the first place. I am looking forward to living in anarchy.
David Wulff http://www.davidwu
Don't beat around the bush, David. Say what you really think ;P Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
The main problem is that we can't afford to pay them more. We have said we will give them a 4% rise, and that alone will exhaust the funds available to the fire service as it is. To give them what they are asking would mean an increase in taxes of around (I believe this was the figure I heard) £15 a year. This is just for the fireservice - before long everyone would be jumping on and everything would collapse. We already live in a high cost society and give a large amount of our pay to the government for the social and public services - there is a limit to what we can afford too you know. The firefighters are whining about nothing and have no case in my eyes. A soldier who has just come back from Afghanistan can look forward to a possible trip to Iraq before the year is out to be shot at by a different bunch of guys waiving AK47's for a few weeks at a time before coming home for a fortnight and being sent off on yet another campaign in the name of free capitalism. These people get less than the firefighters currently do, and if you want me to choose between whose career has the most risk attached to it I will not be choosing the people who rescue cats out of trees and spray water on fires. :| In fact I wouldn't answer as I do not make judgements on the worthiness of such careers nor the people follwoing them, but you get my point hopefully. I don't see many firegfighters living in one bedroom flats above chip shops... I'll be damned if I am going to pay for their forty grand sports cars and expensive nightclubs. They already make more than most of the populous. :~ If there was a real legitmate cause for concern then changes would have already been made to compensate for them. These people are just getting greedy. If they want to withdraw there services because they think they are underpaid, then they can jolly well go and find a different career. They have a job with serious responsibilities towards the people who pay their salaries - us. If they screw with their responsibilities then we should have the right to screw with our responsibility to pay them in the first place. I am looking forward to living in anarchy.
David Wulff http://www.davidwu
David Wulff wrote: I believe this was the figure I heard) £15 a year. David Wulff wrote: These people are just getting greedy. For 15 quid a year, I wonder who really is being greedy ? I agree that they should be allowed to get another career if this one doesn't suit them. And your government has the capability to replace them, like Reagan did with the US Air- traffic controllers years ago. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: if it's anything like the run up to halloween over here Imagine halloween anywhere else (except in the states where it's a joy to behold) and throw in readily available fireworks in every corner shop. Of course they're not supposed to sell to kids below a certain age (can't remember whether it's 16 or 18) but most shops know that this age group is where the big profits are, and where they don't take advantage there's always some "adult" ready to bring in supplies. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
Paul Riley wrote: fireworks in every corner shop. They're more or less illegal over here. You can only get them through government licensed shops and even then only for council approved shows. Makes sense to me. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
David Wulff wrote: I believe this was the figure I heard) £15 a year. David Wulff wrote: These people are just getting greedy. For 15 quid a year, I wonder who really is being greedy ? I agree that they should be allowed to get another career if this one doesn't suit them. And your government has the capability to replace them, like Reagan did with the US Air- traffic controllers years ago. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: For 15 quid a year, I wonder who really is being greedy ? So we should give up £15 a year to any government worker who asks for it? That's going to add up pretty quickly. And what about next year when they think they want another 40%? Fact is that the government can't afford to give up that £15 of other peoples' money unless the public support it. The Labour Party has a history with this kind of thing, they are largely funded by unions and spent much of the 70s giving in to them. They've managed to shed that image with the "New Labour" campaign, they can't afford to go back to that. Colin Davies wrote: And your government has the capability to replace them, like Reagan did with the US Air- traffic controllers years ago. Well, the latest news is that there's a war going on between the standard firefighters union and the Retained Firefighters Union (people who are called out only in extreme emergencies and are paid significantly less per hour than full-time firefighters). The RFU are claiming that they can and will take the fire engines and create a backup service with 90% of the strength of the normal service. The striking union are laughing this off and saying that there's only 200-300 of them, in rural areas only. It will be interesting to see what happens. If the RFU manage to save a lot of lives over that dangerous week, it's going to be a slightly different ball-game, no? :-D Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
David Wulff wrote: I believe this was the figure I heard) £15 a year. David Wulff wrote: These people are just getting greedy. For 15 quid a year, I wonder who really is being greedy ? I agree that they should be allowed to get another career if this one doesn't suit them. And your government has the capability to replace them, like Reagan did with the US Air- traffic controllers years ago. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: For 15 quid a year, I wonder who really is being greedy ? But that is on top of what people already give in taxes - a third of everything they earn in my parents case - and that £15 a year would make a *big* difference. The average wage over here has got to be around £12,000 a year, which allows for £8040 to be kept be the individual after taxes to pay for housing (which the last time I checked was ridiculously overpriced), water, electricity, gas, telephone, petrol, food, clothing and entertainment. £15 a year would make a *big* difference to many people. Could you alone afford tp live in the UK for £154 a week? That alone is a hard enough feat, let alone if you have a family of four to support and only have two working family members bringing in arounf £310 a week, with £15.50 a week for each child in benefits (if you are within this category, which you would be with that annual salary). Let's not forget children require feeding and clothing too - and that their clothing requirements change every six months for the first eighteen years or so of their lives. I have grown in up such a situation - and worse - since The Ley was taken from us in the late eighties, and let me tell you straight £1.25 a month (£15 a year) would have made a lot more difference than you may think. I'd be lucky if my parents could spare half that each month in pocket money for all four of us, let alone my grandparents who we had to pay rent for else they too would be camping on a friends floor. I believe strongly that you should be expected to pay for public services as and when you use them if you can afford to, or at least as much as you can spare, else if you cnanot you should expect to be covered by the public purse with no expense spared unecessarily. I know this will strike a stake through the hearts of many Americans but I am firmly of the impression that society's place is to proivide for itself where individuals fall short or hard. I don't mind giving a third of what I earn to cover these services - and neither to most British people I know - as I know that should the tables turn I will not be on the street dying of kidney failure because I can't afford hoursing or treatment, or that if I come home one day to find my wife rolling on the floor in agony I can have a qualified paramedic in my kitchen within 20 minutes (in fact it is about 2 minutes from where I live, with police and fire responses within about 5 minutes). When the public servants who provide
-
Colin Davies wrote: For 15 quid a year, I wonder who really is being greedy ? But that is on top of what people already give in taxes - a third of everything they earn in my parents case - and that £15 a year would make a *big* difference. The average wage over here has got to be around £12,000 a year, which allows for £8040 to be kept be the individual after taxes to pay for housing (which the last time I checked was ridiculously overpriced), water, electricity, gas, telephone, petrol, food, clothing and entertainment. £15 a year would make a *big* difference to many people. Could you alone afford tp live in the UK for £154 a week? That alone is a hard enough feat, let alone if you have a family of four to support and only have two working family members bringing in arounf £310 a week, with £15.50 a week for each child in benefits (if you are within this category, which you would be with that annual salary). Let's not forget children require feeding and clothing too - and that their clothing requirements change every six months for the first eighteen years or so of their lives. I have grown in up such a situation - and worse - since The Ley was taken from us in the late eighties, and let me tell you straight £1.25 a month (£15 a year) would have made a lot more difference than you may think. I'd be lucky if my parents could spare half that each month in pocket money for all four of us, let alone my grandparents who we had to pay rent for else they too would be camping on a friends floor. I believe strongly that you should be expected to pay for public services as and when you use them if you can afford to, or at least as much as you can spare, else if you cnanot you should expect to be covered by the public purse with no expense spared unecessarily. I know this will strike a stake through the hearts of many Americans but I am firmly of the impression that society's place is to proivide for itself where individuals fall short or hard. I don't mind giving a third of what I earn to cover these services - and neither to most British people I know - as I know that should the tables turn I will not be on the street dying of kidney failure because I can't afford hoursing or treatment, or that if I come home one day to find my wife rolling on the floor in agony I can have a qualified paramedic in my kitchen within 20 minutes (in fact it is about 2 minutes from where I live, with police and fire responses within about 5 minutes). When the public servants who provide
David Wulff wrote: The average wage over here has got to be around £12,000 a year Last I heard it was 16K and I think it's gone up a little since then. I'd guess around 17K... otherwise, right on. [edit]But then remember that thes figures are skewed by the 3-4% that are earning ridiculous amounts. It takes a fair few people under £16K to balance out a single footballer on £2.6mil. If the statement was that an average person earns around £12K, you'd probably not be far wrong.[/edit] Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2me.html[^] Okay, I think this deserves a rant. I understand that they're pissed off, I understand WHY they're pissed off. I have (had?) some sympathy for their plight, though I would argue that a lot of people in the army get paid less than the firemen but they're not allowed to strike and if they're not happy, give it up and do a well paid job. Once there's no fire fighters, they'll have to increase wages and you have experience already. Striking is the lazy way out. And they must know they can't win. They must know that if the government gives in to a strike, memories of the 1970's Labour party will reemerge and Blair will be screwed for the first time since he took power. So WHY have two 48 hour strikes during the week before Guy Fawkes night? That is just plain irresponsible and reprehensible. And, on a related note, can someone explain to me why the army have to use these green goddesses instead of the real fire engines that we (the tax payers) pay for? Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
From what I've heard, the dispute has arisen because a deal which was supposed to keep firefighters pay in line with police officers pay has not been kept. Also, what are the comparitive casualty figures ? Both are dangerous occupations. Elaine Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
From what I've heard, the dispute has arisen because a deal which was supposed to keep firefighters pay in line with police officers pay has not been kept. Also, what are the comparitive casualty figures ? Both are dangerous occupations. Elaine Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: From what I've heard, the dispute has arisen because a deal which was supposed to keep firefighters pay in line with police officers pay has not been kept. There never has been any deal, nor has there been any parity between fire and police pay in 50 years. The fire service have always felt themselves hard-done-by in comparison to other services. You can check out the history of the various disputes, albeit a very one-sided viewpoint, at http://www.fireservice.co.uk/pay001.php[^]. Never let it be said that I don't read both sides of the argument before bitching about someone ;P Trollslayer wrote: Also, what are the comparitive casualty figures ? I've been trying to find this out for weeks. The figures are surprisingly elusive (probably because neither one is as dangerous as they like us to think) so anything I say here is speculation. My instinct says that it's very police-heavy. You don't honestly hear of many casualties in either department since way back in the strikes of the early 80s, but you do occasionally hear of police being killed in riots or particularly bad situations that go wrong, I don't remember the last time I heard of a fireman being killed in any incident. Sure, when something like 9-11 happens, the fire department becomes a very dangerous career decision. But then when something like 9-11 happens, so does working in a nice quiet office on the 95th floor. I'm not trying to dismiss what the fire department do, they deserve more than an average wage and they get it (their lowest wage, according to their web page, is marginally above the national average wage). But the fact remains that a manual labourer in any industry does not get as much as a skilled worker, so they're wrong to ask for it. A 4% rise is double inflation, it's better than they were going to get, they should take it and push for a double-inflation raise guaranteed over the next five years, not get stroppy because they're not getting 20 times the rate of inflation. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop