Fire-fighers
-
What do fellow Brits think about this fire-fighters strike for a 40% payrise? I'm against strikes at the best of times, but in light of the 3 deaths on the first night of the 48 hour strike I was totally shocked to see the next three scheduled strikes are EIGHT-DAYS long! Almost no fire-fighter cover until Christmas (at a time of year when more and more people are going to be switching up/on their heating (more). Coming from an Army background, I understand that the Army forces providing cover are not as well trained as regular fire-brigade (and worse, the "jolly-green-giants" they use are design for war-time fires.. e.g. stopping fires from spreading rather than putting out fires). Any thoughts? Imagine if they win, who will be the next union to demand 40%+ payrises? If it happens, I'm sure we'll return to the dark days of the 70's again! Regards, Ray
Ray Hayes wrote: Any thoughts? Imagine if they win, who will be the next union to demand 40%+ payrises? If it happens, I'm sure we'll return to the dark days of the 70's again! Its stupid, you can't ask for a 40% pay rise and expect people to think thats okay. I do think they should do somthing about the pay structure though, that it seems a guy who has done the job for 15 years earns the same as someone whon has done it for a 1 year.
-
What do fellow Brits think about this fire-fighters strike for a 40% payrise? I'm against strikes at the best of times, but in light of the 3 deaths on the first night of the 48 hour strike I was totally shocked to see the next three scheduled strikes are EIGHT-DAYS long! Almost no fire-fighter cover until Christmas (at a time of year when more and more people are going to be switching up/on their heating (more). Coming from an Army background, I understand that the Army forces providing cover are not as well trained as regular fire-brigade (and worse, the "jolly-green-giants" they use are design for war-time fires.. e.g. stopping fires from spreading rather than putting out fires). Any thoughts? Imagine if they win, who will be the next union to demand 40%+ payrises? If it happens, I'm sure we'll return to the dark days of the 70's again! Regards, Ray
I basically agree with you. They can't be allowed to win a 40% payrise as they will immediately be followed by all public service workers. I think the three deaths are being blown out of proportion as apparently this is a pretty typical toll per day, and in fact fatal road traffic accidents where down on the average last night. I think what firefighters and other public service workers have to face up to is several things. 1. These are vocational jobs, not everyone could do them, but at the same time this isn't a reason to be paid the earth. As has been pointed out several times over the last few days, there are no vacancies for fire fighters people want to do this job ! 2. Make inflated wage claims when times are good ! Public sector workers may be paid less be they at least have greater job security than those in the private sector. I know many people (including myself !) who have had to take pay cuts both last year and this year. I would love an 11% rise over two years !! 3. If you want professional wages you need to work professional hours. As an example I work 37.5 hours a week, I also do at least two hours per night and generally four to five hours over a weekend. ...also... How much does Andy Gilchrist get paid ? I bet he won't be going short over Christmas whilst the people he represent, by that time could be out of pocket by about two weeks wages. ...I'm beginning to rant so I'll stop !... :omg:
-
What do fellow Brits think about this fire-fighters strike for a 40% payrise? I'm against strikes at the best of times, but in light of the 3 deaths on the first night of the 48 hour strike I was totally shocked to see the next three scheduled strikes are EIGHT-DAYS long! Almost no fire-fighter cover until Christmas (at a time of year when more and more people are going to be switching up/on their heating (more). Coming from an Army background, I understand that the Army forces providing cover are not as well trained as regular fire-brigade (and worse, the "jolly-green-giants" they use are design for war-time fires.. e.g. stopping fires from spreading rather than putting out fires). Any thoughts? Imagine if they win, who will be the next union to demand 40%+ payrises? If it happens, I'm sure we'll return to the dark days of the 70's again! Regards, Ray
There does seem to be a bit of a plague of industrial action at the moment. 40% is far too high a demand, I don't understand the point in even asking for it. A far better strategy would be to seek some kind of consistent payment structure, such that the current position can never repeat itself (i.e. firefighters being undervalued). However, if that's the case then I would also argue that a change in work practices has to be expected. If firefighters are to receive a professional-style wage then I would expect greater utilisation etc. The industrial action I have the biggest problem with was the recent tube strikes. Tube drivers already get around £25-30k. As far as I can see they only drive one way, they don't have to make any turnings etc. I accept that there is a fairly high chance that each driver will be involved with some kind of suicide attempt on a regular basis, but come on. -- Paul "If you can keep your head when all around you have lost theirs, then you probably haven't understood the seriousness of the situation." - David Brent, from "The Office" MS Messenger: paul@oobaloo.co.uk Sonork: 100.22446
-
Easy - set fire to their mothers houses and see how long the strike lasts. If you're involved in a life saving service, you should find ways to negotiate for what is reasonable without endangering lives. Simple as that. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
What do fellow Brits think about this fire-fighters strike for a 40% payrise? I'm against strikes at the best of times, but in light of the 3 deaths on the first night of the 48 hour strike I was totally shocked to see the next three scheduled strikes are EIGHT-DAYS long! Almost no fire-fighter cover until Christmas (at a time of year when more and more people are going to be switching up/on their heating (more). Coming from an Army background, I understand that the Army forces providing cover are not as well trained as regular fire-brigade (and worse, the "jolly-green-giants" they use are design for war-time fires.. e.g. stopping fires from spreading rather than putting out fires). Any thoughts? Imagine if they win, who will be the next union to demand 40%+ payrises? If it happens, I'm sure we'll return to the dark days of the 70's again! Regards, Ray
There is no doubt they do an important job . But they knew the pay rates when they started the job , so apart from a few percent extra to bring them back into line with other workers what do they deserve ? So they cannot live on the wages ? welcome to the real world ! The average wage in the UK cannot afford the average house , firemen are not a special case . Danger ? what danger ?More people die on building sites .So there was a tradgedy in New York , why should UK firemen get extra money as a result ? If the Gulf War II starts do the armies of the rest of the world deserve more money ? The plain fact is that whilst they do a vital job , the job requires little training compared to many other jobs , it is not especially dangerous , and they get to retire on 75% of wages aged 50 . Oh , and UK firemen are the highest paid in Europe . They were offered 11% over 2 years , at a time when the average is about 2% or less . Yes in aperfect world everyone would have lots , but it aint perfect and I can think of other more deserving groups of people where I want MY tax money spent.
-
Unemployment in the UK is very, very low - in the area I live, it is only the unemployable that are out of work. There are probably more jobs than there are people to fill them, so I don't see how this would solve the countries problems (actually it's a great argument for more immigration! ha ha ha). The only way to ensure our public servants get a better wage is to either pay more taxes, or divert existing funds. Either way it'll cost somone - and that's the problem - no-one wants to foot the bill.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I think it's disgusting, holding the country to ransom like this. I completely agree, see below... Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Unemployment in the UK is very, very low - in the area I live, it is only the unemployable that are out of work. Strange isn't it though, that people have never felt more inscure in their jobs than currently. Probably because all our work is being "off-shored" to India etc. As for my stance on the fire-fighters strike, there are two clear issues: 1. The pay - it possibly is too little, I don't know. Perhaps they have an argument for a decent pay-rise (though the percentage they're talking about seems ridiculous at first sight). However, I don't really know enough about the situation to comment - that's the Government's job and the union leaders'. 2. Denying an essential service - there is absolutely NO excuse for this. When they join the fire service (or any other essential service), they fully understand that they are part of an essential, service. The word "essential" is an absolute and they should know that as such, striking is absolutely forbidden. They cannot blackmail the Government using peoples' very lives - it's unjustifiable and immoral. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
Unemployment in the UK is very, very low - in the area I live, it is only the unemployable that are out of work. There are probably more jobs than there are people to fill them, so I don't see how this would solve the countries problems (actually it's a great argument for more immigration! ha ha ha). The only way to ensure our public servants get a better wage is to either pay more taxes, or divert existing funds. Either way it'll cost somone - and that's the problem - no-one wants to foot the bill.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Unemployment in the UK is very, very low - in the area I live, it is only the unemployable that are out of work I will refute that in the most polite way I know , because to say what I really think might offend those of a more delicate nature. I put it to you that you live in the never never land of the South East ? In large parts of the real world unemployment is at stageringly high levels (30% around here) and the figure is only kept low because the government has done a better job than the Tories in massaging the statistics. So move to the South East I here you say ! How ? No one can afford the houses because of the stupid way prices have gone. The other alternative is to let the market work , remove all London weightings in peoples income and just let it take a few years to settle down. Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Unemployment in the UK is very, very low - in the area I live, it is only the unemployable that are out of work I will refute that in the most polite way I know , because to say what I really think might offend those of a more delicate nature. I put it to you that you live in the never never land of the South East ? In large parts of the real world unemployment is at stageringly high levels (30% around here) and the figure is only kept low because the government has done a better job than the Tories in massaging the statistics. So move to the South East I here you say ! How ? No one can afford the houses because of the stupid way prices have gone. The other alternative is to let the market work , remove all London weightings in peoples income and just let it take a few years to settle down. Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
Yep, I live in the South East. I wouldn't go as far as calling it never-never land but it still doesn't change the fact that unemployment is at its lowest level for a generation. The question is, are areas of low unemployment in the UK the norm, or the exception? Depends who you ask! Besides, the South East has always been like this - and this isn't ever going to change. If it weren't for the house prices, then the entire bloody country would be living here... You don't always have to move to work for a company based in the South East - the company I work for has employees all over the country, happily tele-commuting away. This puts said employees in a very envious position - they can enjoy lower house prices yet still earn a South Eastern wage. One employee in my division moved back to Birmingham after renting here in Newbury - he bought a 4 bedroom house for 80K yet still gets a nice fat wage. Winner. Of course, not all companies offer working from home as an option, but more and more are seeing the benefits. House prices are high here simply because of market forces - supply and demand unfortunately. Obviously the surge in the "buy to let" market hasn't helped - without this phenomenon perhaps fewer people would be priced out, but you can't stop people buying houses ... or can you? However, while this is a massive problem for many, who says you HAVE to own property? The rental market in the South East is collapsing, and rents are tumbling. We rented here in Newbury for 2 years - and by the start of this year our rent had dropped to 200 pounds lower than the figure we started out with in 2000. The same house we rented in 2000 (modern 3 bed detached) for ~800 a month can now be had for less than 600. Expensive, but not as bad as people make it out. I know, I live here! The urge to own your own home seems strange to many of our continental cousins where long-term rents are the norm. I'll blame Thatcher for this again, as she's an easy target. Before too long we'll see 40 or 50 year mortgages as the norm which will allow more people to buy, but at a price. Let's face it, house prices are so out of reach for many that there won't be any other solution (save for a massive slump and I wouldn't bank on that anytime soon). People will end up leaving their mortgage to their kids to finish paying, like they do in Japan. Not good, but what else can you do? Have the government (and hence the taxpayer) subsidise peoples homes? Where does it end?
When I am king, you will be first
-
What do fellow Brits think about this fire-fighters strike for a 40% payrise? I'm against strikes at the best of times, but in light of the 3 deaths on the first night of the 48 hour strike I was totally shocked to see the next three scheduled strikes are EIGHT-DAYS long! Almost no fire-fighter cover until Christmas (at a time of year when more and more people are going to be switching up/on their heating (more). Coming from an Army background, I understand that the Army forces providing cover are not as well trained as regular fire-brigade (and worse, the "jolly-green-giants" they use are design for war-time fires.. e.g. stopping fires from spreading rather than putting out fires). Any thoughts? Imagine if they win, who will be the next union to demand 40%+ payrises? If it happens, I'm sure we'll return to the dark days of the 70's again! Regards, Ray
What really shocked me is that the number of hoax emergency calls to the fire service went through the roof at 6 pm last night when the strike kicked into effect. WTF are these people on? The should be kicked out of the country for abusing the emergency services during normal operation, they should be kicked off the planet for wasting them when they are spread so thinly. :mad: :mad: :mad: As to the strike itself, I think the government should very quickly pass legislation to legally prohibit fire servicemen and servicewomen from taking industrial action, just as they have with the police. Anyone objecting should immeadiately be sacked. I understand that striking was the last think the actual firefighters wanted to do (they hate it as much as we do) but that does not sway me at all. They stormed out of the last talks sulking, and when peoples lives and livelihoods are at risk that is not on. They get paid a perfectly adequate wages (remember to add overtime and bonuses to that 20K figure, and you're looking at more than some of the more highly paid manual labourers make. And let's not kid ourselves, they *are* manual labourers. If we give them special treatment then as you say - whose next?
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
"Life, as well as software, has bugs." - Roger Wright
-
I think it's disgusting, holding the country to ransom like this. Yesterday, a BBC poll showed around 50% of people supported the strike. Today, after 3 deaths AND HUNDREDS of hoax calls, support has dropped to 30%. They have blown it already. Call me cynical, but if the hoax callers have nothing at all to do with the fire-service then I will be VERY surprised. 40% is ridiculous - the government should rightly call their bluff, as I think the fire-fighters are digging their own graves with this strike (as well as the graves of innocent people - no industrial dispute ios worth even a single life). If they got 40% it would open the floodgates - there are plenty of other deserving professions - nurses, teachers, etc. etc. The government should also allow the military to use existing fire-engines AND striking fire-fighters should not be allowed access to fire-stations and their resources. The engines belong to the public, not the bloody FB union. People should remember 1978 - the "winter of discontent" was kicked off by the tanker-drivers forcing through a 12% pay-rise, which opened the floodgates for the entire public sector. The resulting strikes caused mayhem - from rubbish not being collected, to the dead going unburied, and if eventually resulted in the downfall of the then Labout government. The fact that the fire-fighter are trying to capitalize on what happenned in NYC on 9/11 is sickening - the whole thing stinks. I am not saying they don't deserve more money, but their inflated claim and bully-boy tactics belong in the 1970s. Once public support crumbles (and it will), they are going to look pretty stupid. Let us not also forget how popular a job of fire-fighter is - people are queueing up to fill any vacancies (one area had thousands of applicants for just a few positions), and if conditions were that bad then the opposite would be happenning. I just hope the union leaders can sleep at night - if they don't have blood on their hands already, they soon will have.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I agree with all of that, apart from... Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The government should also allow the military to use existing fire-engines AND striking fire-fighters should not be allowed access to fire-stations and their resources. The engines belong to the public, not the bloody FB union. That is a tricky one. If the government uses the military to cross a picket line then that is the end of that government, it's as simple as that. It would cause utter chaos, and the populous would rise up like boiling milk and heads would roll. A country's military should never be used against it's own people like that, not in our little country anyway.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
"Life, as well as software, has bugs." - Roger Wright