|
|
 |
Add
your comment
The
Fire Brigades' Union is calling for a 40% pay rise and have rejected
the 4% they have been offered.
As
the army and their Green Goddesses are mobilised, fears are growing
in Beds, Herts and Bucks that emergency cover may not be sufficient.
Should
this action be allowed? Do they deserve 40 per cent? What's the
answer? Have your say here.
Read
more about this story
See
more comments
| Che,
Stevenage |
Tuesday
17
December, 2002 |
|
|
The Coastguard are not just the coastal police force they do
have rescue facilities - the RNLI do not need to exist. However
the government rely on a charity to ensure there is an adequate
search and rescue facility available to respond in a similar
way to air ambulances - we in this country are very forward
thinking - 'i dont need it so i dont care' and 'oh and it costs
too much'. Moving on to some of your comments using the correct
terms for something ensures that no misunderstandings are made
- the tax office considers 'allowances' to be very different
to 'wages' for instance. With regard to current night time staffing
the current system is actually very effective - it provides
good immeadiate (less than 5 Minutes) fire cover for the people
of all towns and ensures there is an effective Health and Safety
package available for fire service staff (Any incident is the
workplace for firefighters therefore H & S legislation applies).
It would only be a matter of time before firefighter injuries
and deaths increased should you remove this level of cover -
i'm sure the HSE would have something to say about that! And
so would the tax payer who would have to pay out more ill health
pensions and insurance claims. Your entire basis for not having
full-time staff on duty at night revolves around the fact that
we do not do anything other than fire calls. We could do all
sorts empty dustbins, paint roads, we could be special constables
between calls, hold night surgeries for hyper-condriacts etc
- what you do not consider is that you must have adequate personnel
available immeadiately to respond to calls (not just calls to
fires as the press would have you believe but accidents, floods,
body recovery, lock outs, other rescues including animal rescues)
That does save lives and you cannot argue against that i would
quite happily stay up at night if i was working on fire service
related work and was paid an appropriate salary. I know that
Police officers are quiet at nights, that ambulance staff are
quiet at nights, do you suggest that they should have half the
staff they do during the day? The system works really well in
the ambulance and police services that is why i have waited
longer than 20 minutes for ambulances in the past, considering
you will be dead after 3 minutes exposure to smoke it seems
like a model that should be applied to the fire service after
all it seems to be cost that most people are concerned about
- until they dial 999 then they may have a different concern
- the words 'i got here as soon as i could' does not really
wash and i hope i never have to use them. Community fire safety
does save lives but there is a limit to its effectiveness, a
parallel can be seen in road safety campaigns there are those
that take heed and follow advice, and those that dont despite
an enormous enforcment presence (police, Speed cameras, Speed
limits, etc) yet more and more people die and are injured in
road accidents every year. I have a young son and i stay home
to look after him whilst my wife works - a common occurance
at most fire stations - i hear Mr Blair and co constantly talking
about family friendly issues yet he and you advocate changing
to shift systems that are less family friendly and more obstructive
to family life, those same shifts traditionally used by the
police. Unfortunately these police forces and ambulance services
are tryng as we are to promote family friendly practices in
the public services and are now moving to shifts such as 4 on
4 off! After all it must be remembered there always has to be
a 24 hr presence. If as you have stated wholetime Firefighters
should be retained on their days off i assume that you will
recommend brigades give them mortgage allowances etc so that
they can move to areas close enough to stations so that they
may then respond effectively to calls? although the cost would
be exuberant it would mean that the aims of making firefighters
work more than 42 hrs a week (which is above the working time
directive and is only allowed because HM Government secured
a special dispensation) is realised. And those fantastic conditions
of service well i dont receive any 'perks' i get a good pension
that i pay for and am fortunate enough to see my son more than
the average dad however my wife receives for her 9-5 job Free
Shares, Share options, Share save Schemes, subsidised meals,
subsidised drinks facilities, non contributary 2/3 final salary
pension scheme and an annual bonus - they are benefits and if
you ask me to compare with the police well police allowances
can add thousands of pounds onto the annual salary of an officer
and they have comparable pensions and conditions of service
oh and they also get london weighting in herts i dont. The fact
is the government beleive i am a professional worker, i believe
i should be paid a professional wage - however the government
would like to cut the fire service not because it is failing
or cannot perform adequately but because they wish to save money
which will adversly effect the service it provides, it can be
dressed up how you like it will have an effect. The government
do not care how many lives it loses by these cuts (savings if
we are being politcally correct) it will simply shift the blame
down the chain for not implementing its suggestion as intended
and you will start hearing stories on the news of failing fire
services and fire crews that arrived 20 minutes too late. I
do not want that to happen. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Tuesday
16
December, 2002 |
|
| Che:
You seem to have taken words from different sentences of mine
and strung them together to give a contradictory tone. Where
I used the term "allowances," I was using a combined term to
include both the "annual retainer" and call-out payments. I
have not referred to either Retained or Wholetime firefighters
as worthless, in fact I have said that I am satisfied with the
current system as it is - not delighted, but given the need
to provide 24 hour cover (and at current night-time staffing
levels!), I can't see an effective alternative. I have also
not said that your job is not dangerous. I have said that your
job is not AS dangerous as propaganda would lead us to believe.
I compared the risks with a lollipop lady, not to demean the
firefighters, but to show that there are many other occupations
which involve a high degree of risk, but because they don't
hit the headlines, we don't think about them. As an abstract
thought - if all the lollipop ladies went on s! trike, there
would be a greater risk to life than if the firefighters were
on strike, but who would support a £30k pay claim for lollipop
ladies? Let's also make clear that the terms "disgusting, heartless
and lazy" are your words, not mine. I have not used these words
to describe firefighters, nor would I wish to. I have not spoken
out AGAINST firefighters having second jobs. If they want to
do second jobs, then fair enough. BUT I have made the statement
that their ability to do these jobs is a result of their having
so much time off. Even with regard to the time off, I have raised
this as a benefit of conditions rather than as a crib - converting
your 48 hour, 8 day rota to a 7 day week, you clock on for 42
hours which is comparable to most other occupations, though
your night shifts, with the exception of call-outs, would be
regarded by most people as leisure rather than work. If the
slack hours of the night shift were occupied by tasks of use
to the community (I d! on't know, repairing wheelchairs, producing
hand-made items to benefit charities maybe) so that you actually
needed your fifth day to recouperate, perhaps you would have
more public sympathy. As it stands, you can do your firefighting
duties, spend two days on a second job and still have two full
days off. Of course, if such an initiative we included in a
modernisation package, no doubt you would demand extra pay,
even though you are already paid for the time. You surely can't
deny that you have more opportunity for enhancing your income
than people in other occupations. Digressing to the RNLI and
the Coastguard - the Coastguard don't have the facilities for
rescue, most of the staff being shore-based, but in addition
to other duties (more akin to a police force) are the link to
notifying the RNLI of the need for their assistance. Both need
each other but there the comparison ends. Perhaps the reason
for 20% of Retained firefighter vacancies being unfilled is
their adde! d requirement that they live and work close to the
fire station. Modern lifestyles generally result in a high frequency
of commuting and overtime, both precluding service in the Retained
stations, not to mention that the Retained stations tend to
be in less populous areas and hence are likely to have fewer
locals who can achieve entrance requirements. If the stations
were in more populous areas, no doubt the frequency of call-outs
would be greater and therefore warrant Wholetime staffing. You
have also stated that "Retained firefighters are reconsidering
their stance of not striking because they realise that their
stations are for the chop." Interesting... in the early stages
of the dispute, one of the reasons given by a Retained firefighter
for not striking was that the FBU (YOUR UNION) was operating
a programme of trying to replace the Retained firefighters with
Wholetime personnel and that the FBU only seemed to consider
the Retained firefighters when they could be used! as a bargaining
pawn to gain benefits for the Wholetimers. If I remember correctly,
there are some comments to this effect on the RFU website. So,
nothing really new from me, just a restatement of some of the
things I've said in the past. And no, as far as I'm aware, I've
not contradicted myself. I still maintain that your current
salary, plus a cost of living increase, is a fair wage considering
the beneficial conditions of your job. |
| Katie,
Milton Keynes |
Tuesday
16
December, 2002 |
|
| I'm
only fifteen, but i do not believe fire-fighters should be given
a pay-rise. This is because lots of other jobs deserve it more,mainly
Teachers,without teachers we would not be educated in the first
place,also doctors. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Monday
15
December, 2002 |
|
| Peter
of Hemel: nearly forgot - the ideal situation would be if Wholetime
firefighters could also undertake Retained duties during their
off-duty periods. The advantages would be the increased availability
of personnel during call-outs, increasing response times, the
provision of Retained allowance to the Wholetime firefighters
willing to take on these commitments (extra pay) and the transfer
of knowledge gained from experience from Wholetime to Retained
firefighters. What is stopping this? Legislation? No, it is
the FBU's ruling. Firefighters need to consider whether their
union really has their member's interests at heart. I don't
see it. IF I'M WRONG, CONTRADICT ME, BUT BASE YOUR ARGUMENTS
ON FACTS THAT I CAN LOOK UP. DON'T ROMANTICISE, HERO STATUS
IS FOR THOSE WHO ACT BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY, NOT FOR THOSE
WHO TAKE THE JOB. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Monday
15
December, 2002 |
|
| Let's
get rid of some more fallacies: Firefighters claim that their
prompt action in putting out fires prevents insurance costs
rising. This argument is only valid where their action prevents
fire spreading to other properties. Most contents damage is
as a result of smoke. This is often caused even before the Fire
Brigade is called. Many buildings are made of brick. Bricks
are made at high temperatures and therefore are often unaffected
by the heat of a fire. Bricks cannot, however, withstand rapid
cooling and therefore crack when the Fire Brigade's water jets
hit them. Mortar pointing does not withstand high temperatures
but can be replaced at relatively low cost, provided that the
bricks are intact. I have investigated several fires and found
that the majority of damage has been caused by the action of
putting out the fire rather than the fire itself. This is not
a condemnation of the Fire Brigade, but of the techniques used
and which are taught. Many commercial buildings have smoke vents
which are like opening windows but have a lock which is specially
designed to be opened by the use of the square section of a
firefighters axe. These vents should be opened when the fire
is under control and the concern is to enable firefighters to
work in the building without breathing apparatus. The general
experience is that firefighters prefer to break the glass of
the vent, causing hundreds or thousands of pounds worth of damage,
rather than turning the catch a quarter turn and pushing the
vent open. Yes, breaking the glass saves time, but in a non-emergency
situation, it must surely be better to minimise the cost of
the damage. In an emergency, the glass should not be broken
as this would provide oxygen to fuel the fire. I have personally
seen Grade II listed buildings which have had to be demolished
because the Fire Brigade has taken extinguishing of fire as
their primary concern rather than minimising the damage. Claims
that prom! pt action reduce insurance costs are not always valid.
The cost of rebuilding can often be less than the cost of repairing,
so don't take insurance considerations into account, particularly
when the average home, insurancewise, is worth more than two
or more lives. Save lives, but don't try to bring insurance
into the equation. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Monday
15
December, 2002 |
|
| Peter
of Hemel: If you've read through my comments and come to the
conclusion that I don't like firefighters, then read through
them again. I've been careful not to that firefighters don't
do a good job or that they are a waste of money, or that they
are lazy etc. etc. My argument is not against the firefighters
but against their exorbitant pay claim. I have taken the arguments
put forward in favour of the pay rise and systematically destroyed
them. I have also set out to destroy some of the myths which
some of the public have and which the firefighters are exaggerating
in order to encourage support. You argue that you have a dangerous
job. I don't deny that going into a burning building can carry
great risk, but please, in return, don't deny that few call-outs
involve entering burning buildings and that many of the life-saving
call-outs don't involve risk to the firefighter. Firefighters
save lives in road accidents because the cutting gear is part
of the eq! ui! pment carried on the tender. Were it carried
in police cars, it would be the Police that would be hailed
as the life-savers. With regard to the degree of danger that
you experience, my job involves working with two of the trades
listed in the "10 most dangerous," not during a call-out, but
as part of an 8-10 hour shift, five days a week. I accept it
as part of the job and certainly don't leave the house in the
morning, wondering whether I'll see the wife and kids again.
Yes, in the current circumstances I have a greater respect for
the Retained firefighters than the Wholetime. But please also
check the facts (they're available on YOUR union's website).
Running the Fire Brigade on a totally Retained basis wouldn't
be cost-effective - they are "volunteer" only in the same way
that the TA is "volunteer." That is, they get paid for their
time fulfilling their commitments and receive an allowance for
accepting that responsibility. It's not a free service, as I
suspect you ! kn! ow, nor should it be. You ask if I could give
first aid at a wedding reception. I've never tried, but I have
given first aid to a woman who decided to drive her "girlie"
Suzuki 4x4 into the path of a lorry loaded with 15 tons of aggregate
which was travelling at 60mph. I arranged for stopped motorists
to control the traffic on the A40 until the police arrived.
I strapped the woman to her seat, undid the seat fixings and,
with the help of another person, carried her away from the wreckage
of her car which by now was mostly about 2ft wide, and continued
to give her first aid until the ambulance arrived about 15 minutes
after the crash. The ambulancemen told me that I had acted correctly.
The Fire Brigade did not attend, presumably because there was
no need for them. And yes, when it was all over, I threw my
guts up, then went back to work. Would you also like to hear
about the drunk driver who drove through a brick wall on a remote
road one night, when I and a mate kept ! th! e idiot alive for
half an hour until a passing police car stopped and radioed
for an ambulance? These weren't part of my job, so I can't bleat
on about them when my firm gives me 2%. I do have a gripe with
your union. The FBU is making mugs out of its members. Gilchrist
seems to be another Scargill. The miners went on strike out
of concern for their future, and because of their leadership's
personal agenda, they lost. The firefighters did not start the
strikes with an issue about their future but if they carry on,
how long will it be before somebody realises that an alternative
fire service, perhaps staffed by eastern european immigrants,
may be a possibility? I actually want the Fire Service to run
as it is, it seems to work after all, but holding it's customers
(who are also its true employers) to ransom over unrealistic
claims is not the way forward. I have suggested a route to more
disposable income for firefighters (don't retire early) but
have had a response to t! hi! s only from a prospective firefighter
(which was favourable). I really am not against firefighters,
only against misleading propaganda which I believes emanates
from the FBU and which contradicts the information of the FBU
website. Why else would the qualified firefighters be arguing
for £8.50 per hour when THEIR website shows they are already
on £9.83 per hour? |
| Peter,
Hemel Hempstead |
Monday
15
December, 2002 |
|
| Nicola.
During the strikes Firefighters left their picket lines to attend
incidents where lives were at stake, however since the government
said that the armed forces were able to deal competently with
all the calls (they dont realise that lives are put at risk).They
have based major cuts to the Fire service Nationally, they forgot
to tell the Public that the armed forces dealt with less than
a third of the calls normally received by the service. Therefor
the Fire Service will not be able to attend as fast as they
presently do, this in itself will put lives at greater risk,
please ask your council or MP as to how this will affect attendance,I
bet you dont get a straight answer. All of this has come about
by simply asking for a payrise, the government have known about
the pay claim since May 2002. |
| Dave,
Northampton |
Monday
15
December, 2002 |
|
| Mr
Blair says that you should not believe everything you read in
the paper or see on tele yet 3 weeks ago or so he was going
on about how right they were being about firemen and women.
Do you see mr blair as the liar or the papers or the firemen?
because i dont believe mr blair or the papers. You seem to harp
on about why firemen on strike dont deserve their job yet you
dont mention yours! so come what do you do? whatever it is you
seem pretty bitter and twisted about people who do a good job
for not a lot of money. ps im a builder and earn considerably
more than a fireman. keep fighting for what you deserve |
| Che,
Stevenage |
Monday
15
December, 2002 |
|
|
Nigel, lets clear up some mistakes you have made about retained
Firefighters. There is infact a large proportion of retained
firefighters who are striking for better pay and conditions
because currently they receive the thin end of the wedge when
it comes to training and pay, many members of the Retained Firefighters
Union are reconsidering their stance of not striking because
they realise that their town and village fire stations are for
the chop, as well as their second jobs. Lets also be clear retained
firefighters are paid employees with a contract of employment
who do not receive 'allowances' - they are paid an annual retainer
and receive payment for every hour worked and are able to participate
in a pension scheme. You are right that they have full time
jobs and firefight as a second job - unlike the 'disgusting,
heartless and lazy' wholetime firefighters who work fulltime
as firefighters and have second jobs. You have in the past spoken
out against wholetime ! firefighters having second jobs should
this argument of equality not be applied to retained firefighters?
You do seem to live in a world of contradictions. For example
- you imply the retained firefighters as people dedicated to
the job who will risk their lives any time of the day or night
yet you then go on to say that their 'commitment' is worthless
as it is not a dangerous occupation and not worthy of admiration
because they are paid for providing this service to the community
- which incidently does 'indisputedly' involve risking your
life to save others. Also you seem to forget those volunteer
Fire Brigades such as that in parts of Peterborough who receive
no payment for firefighting. To suggest that a person is not
brave or worthy just because they are paid to do a job is nonsense,
for instance you would never hear of brave soldiers because
they are paid to soldier. The people of the RNLI are to be admired
and celebrated however there are reasons why they came into
being. They were set up and crewed initially by fishermen to
save the lives of the other fishermen from their villages because
no one else considered it their job. And in many ways 100 years
or so on this is still true up to a point. Consider the aspect
of funding an adequate coastguard because if they did that,
there would be no need for the RNLI. So the government rely
on people giving up their own time to prop up a rescue service
that should be paid for by government - oh and those members
of the coastguard that do the same job as those in the RNLI
are they to be considered lesser men and women as well?. You
may get 40 or so applicants for a firefighters job but a significant
proportion do! not even pass the basic intelligence and aptitude
tests. And if everyone is queing up to be firefighters why do
20% of retained firefighters positions go unfilled? You cannot
argue that my skills are not worth the value i claim and your
arguments that a firefighters job is not dangerous are flawed
in many ways. |
| Barbara
Cooke, Hemel Hempstead |
Monday
15
December, 2002 |
|
| I
wonder how King Blair now feels about the media turning on him
and his family ? I would have thought not to good As I have
Talked, Read and listend to every one who is anyone, put and
pull the fire service apart. I am sorry to say I have no sympothy
with Queen Blair as a her husband is the one who branded my
husband a killer and told him and the rest of the fire fighters
they should be proud of their jobs THEY ARE. well she should
do the same and not buy 2 flats on the cheap by the way why
does she need 2 ? just greedy I would say what about the people
who live in a cardboard box or who can not afford to buy a place
I think Blairs comments on the fire service only a few weeks
ago shows what a big two faced poliction he realy is. She now
knows how hurtful people can be when it involves children I
know because of the remarks said about my childrens Dad they
are proud of their Dad for what he stands for and it is not
trying to get money out of people like the Blairs ! |
| Nicola
Pearce, Rochester |
Friday
13
December, 2002 |
|
| I
think the firefighters are out of order because if they are
so caring about saving peoples lives and want more money in
doing it then they are lying because all the time the strike
is going on peoples lives are at risk! Thank you! Im 16! |
| Peter,
Hemel Hempstead |
Friday
13
December, 2002 |
|
| Nigel.
You dont like Firefighters As shown by your comments, perhaps
you would like all Firefighters to be volunteers and do it for
the love of the job,(which I Do)that way we dont have to pay
them and while we are at it add the Nurses Ambulance Crews to
this and save a fortune, however the Government will take that
to finance other crazy schemes and ideas, so we will still be
worse off. You quoted Firefighters being killed on duty, So
with all our skilled training we still die(according to you
and some others iys not dangerous). Fires ,Buildings and Toxins
cant read books. ,One thing I do agree with is the RNLI they
are BRILLIANT and display great COURAGE. But they are not Government
funded (Thank god) otherwise they would be subjected to cuts
called MODERNISATION. I have attended incidents when I have
been off duty, including 1st Aid at a Wedding Reception WOULD
YOU!! or COULD YOU?? |
| Steve,
Leighton Buzzard |
Thursday
12
December, 2002 |
|
|
Y HAS EVERYBODY GONE QUIET? |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Tuesday
10
December, 2002 |
|
| Lucy
of Rochester: It seems that you have a different fire service
in Kent, or perhaps your local firefighters are RETAINED (not
on strike) as opposed to WHOLETIME (claiming unrealistic pay
rises as a result of being misled somewhere along the line).
The Wholetime firefighters do not "give up their time even on
important occasions" - they are paid to attend fires as a full-time
job. Retained firefighters attend fires in addition to holding
down a full-time job and receive allowances for being available
for duty and for call-outs. Your admiration is worthy of an
organisation such as the RNLI, staffed by true volunteers and
indisputably ready to risk their own lives to save others. The
Wholetime firefighters have a less dangerous occupation than
their propaganda attempts to lead us to believe. 12 firefighters
have died in the last 11 years. I don't have access to the !
figures, but suspect this is less than the number of lollipop
ladies killed in the same period. I would also dispute that
the firefighters risk their lives more than the Police - armed
crime is frequent and at least as unpredictable as a fire. With
regard to your comment that many of the public wouldn't do a
firefighter's job, consider how many applicants there are for
each vacancy. Forget the romantics and look at the facts. |
| lucy
deadman, rochester kent |
Monday
9
December, 2002 |
|
| i
personally feel it is right for the firemen/women to strike
as this is the last resort. it is unfair that they risk theyre
lives more so than people in services such as the police force
and nursing and recieve the least pay. they give up theyre time
willingly even in the middle of important occasions risking
theyre lives whilst the families worry for there safety, an
uncertainty every time they go on a call out. surely the government
arent taking into account the risks, time and bravery they give
the country everyday of the year. many of the public feel the
firefighters dont care enough as striking is risking even more
lives however they arent willing to put themselves forward into
their position and do the same thing. they deserve fair pay
and this case would surely be bordering on the lines of discrimination
should they not get it. |
| nadia
magdenovic, malvern worcestershire |
Friday
6
December, 2002 |
|
| i
think that the firefighters deserve a payrise as they do a great
job and put there lives at risk to save others!!!If it wasnt
for them lots of people would have died in fires.Maybe one day
you might be in a fire then you will see how much they help
and how good they are to the community! |
| Che,
Stevenage |
Friday
6
December, 2002 |
|
| Nigel,
It is fair comment that the night shift is mostly unproductive
- after 11.00pm you cant really be proactive in the community
and drilling on station after that point would certainly upset
the neigbours! However to maintain the same level of response
24 hrs a day you still need the same number of staff etc. and
it is for all the reasons i have stated before nessacery to
have that level of response as the same. It doesnt matter how
the shifts are worked you will still have a period of unproductivity
until the point a call comes in. The politicians have one concept
and that is cost versus productivity. That may be applicable
to industry because profit is the motive, but should this concept
be applicable to emergency services? I do not think it should
as a tax payer i am happy to pay to ensure there are enough
ambulances, police officers and yes firefighters (i am no different
to anyone else when i'm off duty!) to respond immeadiately should
i dial 999. I'm certain there are slack periods when there are
'too many' police officers on duty not being productive, however
when an event occurs those 'too many' become 'not enough'. We
(the UK) do not have an oversized or extravagent fire service
we have an adequate fire and rescue service that currently has
the ability to react very quickly (once notified). Unfortunately
as i have described before time is of the essence The point
i have been trying to make is that the governments modernisation
proposals do not address increasing or even maintaining attendance
times, they do not address improving training to an even greater
standard they only address saving money, diluting skills, and
slowing the full and effective reaction to calls - it cannot
be argued that any of these will save lives or improve performance,
this is why the politicians avoid mentioning any of these subjects.
The deal brokered by the employers and then binned by the government
would of allowed 16% staged over one year, ga! ve both the union
and the employers the ability to discuss and work on ANY subject
raised by either side with regard to modernisation - if either
side refused to accept a modernisation proposal it would of
had to of gone to arbitration and that decision would of been
binding. However that deal would have cost £200 million pounds
over 3 years for the government to fund on a current budget
of £1.7 billion pounds a year. That has already been spent on
the armed services alone, when insurance claims are met, police
overtime is met and the cost of all the other agencies who stepped
in to fill our shoes are added in it would be cheaper to have
paid the full 30K. I am skilled and believe that £25 000 was
an offer that we would have all accepted and would have meant
that savings would of been made but sensible ones not the ill
concieved stupiditys of ministers that havent got a clue. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Thursday
5
December, 2002 |
|
| Peter
and Che: Thanks for putting me right on your leave criteria.
It seems odd that you have to take leave in blocks of 7 when
your rota has an 8 day length. You also have an odd three days
left after 5 blocks, so 38 days leave is a further strange number.
Now, presuming that you take your blocks of leave to include
your duty hours, you are at the fire station for 202 days per
year, of which 41 are the tail ends of night shifts. You have
125 totally free rest days plus your 38 days leave, making 163
days off per year. You can compare this to industry where there
are 104 days of weekends, 8 bank holidays and 20 or 25 days
leave - total 132 or 135 days off per year. If we are to take
your arguments seriously, hold up your hands and admit that
you get a month more off work each year than people in other
employments. You also have the most usable part of the day available
when you finish your 2nd night shift, so it could be argued
that you have an additional month and a half. I won't, other
than to say that it generously offsets any claim you may make
regarding night shift working and transition from days to nights.
If you then work out the salary of a 5th year qualified firefighter
on a pro-rata basis, £21531 x 233(public working days) / 202
(FB working days), the firefighters effective salary is £24835
(pro rata). Not bad when you consider that this could be the
wage of a 23-year old firefighter. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Thursday
5
December, 2002 |
|
|
Che: I didn't say that we needed fewer firefighters at night,
you must be confusing me with someone else. My argument was
that you have 2 productive shifts per rota and 2 which, though
long, are almost totally non-productive unless you get a call-out.
In the private sector, there are many who work a productive
five-day week and also are available for call-out for weekend
emergencies. The lucky ones (not all) may get an extra payment
for accepting the extra on-call status. You have some pretty
excellent working conditions which most people would be glad
to offset against lower pay. The trouble is, you aren't on "lower"
pay, you are already being paid more than the average worker,
either in the private or public sector. As I've said in the
past, don't be fooled by the term "National Average Wage," the
average worker earns far less than this - footballers, tv personalities
and stock traders etc. totally screw up the numbers. |
| Colin,
Bedford |
Thursday
5
December, 2002 |
|
| To
Barbara of Hemel and Phil(DEC 2) The 'facts' that you felt that
I had "not got right or needed to get right" were observations
and information gained from :- a local firefighter (I am told
he is a 'sub'?) who is also a plummer complete with van, a televised
interview with husband and wife / both firefighters, a couple
of 3CR-live interviews also tv interviews with firefighters
and a 3CR listener who was a builder 'phoning in, he agreed,on
air, that he regularly used firemen as they were the best building
labourers - they were used to working at heights and were usually
available - he said that not me! also one of my ex apprentices
who had become a fireman and told me of "how fortunate he was
to have electrical skills in order to carry out part time electrical
work" these firefighters presumably were telling their own story
not the media's version? I am not knocking them but merely stating
facts I still maintain that they have knocked themselves- or
were all of those televised and radio interviews stage mana!
ged and with incorrect facts portrayed? if so they did not do
their cause any justice! As for my need to 'get a life' as you
put it- I can assure you that I have done plenty in my life
including dealing with fatalities and the injured. I have been
a musician for several years (so yes -I have done part time
work also) and have literally been there and done that, I've
played in several bands and with 'famous names' UK and USA during
the 60's and since (yes I am that old - before you say so)I
have gained several skills in life also within the workplace
and I am thoroughly grateful for 'my lot'(so far?)and I am quite
prepared to be criticised which is why I have used my own name
and not "hidden" where I could have given you a real bashing,
I prefer to be honest and upstanding and face up to reality
also my critics. I have my health and hopefully some future
left? (Phil)I was not whinging about my lot or my earnings,
merely comparing yours with others,it is you guys that have
put! yourselves up for comparison hence critism! Manual workers
can still be "professional" and usually are, or are you knocking
other manual workers? manual workers do work with their hands,
so you are manual workers so be proud to say so! and really
need to read my comments more closely. By the way,it was once
my ambition to be a fireman too! |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Thursday
5
December, 2002 |
|
| Phil
(Hitchin): I've got to take Colin's side on this. The point
he's making is that you seem to have lost touch with the real
world outside. In the early days of this site, the firefighters
were having a go at the MP's increase (I am in agreement) and
arguing that the same review body, having classed firefighters
as professionals, should be entitled to £30k. The review body's
assessments were obviously flawed (why else the MP's increase?),
so why should they be correct in respect of the firefighters?
The review body quite obviously doesn't have a clue of the rates
of pay in the real world - perhaps the body was made up of High
Court judges??? Where will you find a 20-year old who has achieved
professional status? Where will you find a 20-year old on £30k?
If you compare the fire brigade with industry, I would suspect
that professional status arrives at Station Officer level. If
you start knocking people who earn less than you while actively
working more hours, you will lose what little support you have
from the gullible section of the public. Also, don't forget
that Colin (or his equivalent in your county) pays your wages
and can reasonably be discontented if his standard of living
is to drop to fund an unreasonable increase in yours. |
| Phil,
Hitchin |
Wednesday
4
December, 2002 |
|
| Colin,
so you've struggled to get a decent paid job despite qualifications
therefore everyone else must suffer because you have? Is this
the crux of your argument? it is right that just because firefighters
do not have degrees then they do not deserve to earn a wage
concurrent with their skills? Why do you say we are 'manual'
workers anyway? Ask the government and they will reassure you
we are professional (that is the skills bracket they have put
us in). The union actually discourage second jobs perhaps it
could be added to all public sector workers contracts - though
it would be unlikely to be passed as the MPs would all have
to give up their second jobs. I did have two jobs before i joined
the fire service i would hope that you were not greedy like
i was at some point in your career. You make a comment that
firefighters do not enter burning buildings if there is any
risk - well any fire carries risk and we enter the majority
of them to search for casualties and extinghuish them, you do
not extinguish a fire from outside you attack it from inside
- the army has shown that attacking fires from outside leaves
a nice burnt out shell. A 'simple' house fire carries many risks
from exploding aerosols, collapsing ceilings, stair cases and
floors, damaged electrical cabling, flashovers, backdraughts,
gas explosions, oxygen cylinders kept at home for the elderly,
asbestos and not forgeting fire, heat and smoke itself. We do
only enter with appropriate training and equipment - its what
keeps us alive and allows us to save life - it doesnt make it
any safer or easier! Oh and the Health and Safety Executive
likes it this way. If you have difficuties in getting work then
perhaps you should campaign with the appropriate pressure groups
to get the law changed on ageism instead of campaigning to get
everyone else in the same boat as you. |
| Peter,
Hemel Hempstead |
Wednesday
4
December, 2002 |
|
| Nigel.
The leave we take has to be taken in a block of 7 therefore
1 weeks leave also includes periods when we were off duty, so
to say we get 9 weeks leave, yes please let me have it as with
everyone else, but we can dream.9 weeks leave sorry you got
that wrong. |
| Che,
Stevenage |
Wednesday
4
December, 2002 |
|
|
Nigel, you are right 38 days leave, great! except that a number
of those days are taken when we are on rota, im sure you know
what that means, but for those that dont it is when we are on
rest days - yes! We have to take holiday when we are off already!.
So its actually about 30 or so days and that compares well with
the private sector. As for the shift system it should be banned
for industry as well - oops but then places like Luton and Stansted
airports would have to put up their costs and the business men
and women would have to pay more to travel or our food would
be more expensive! Its quite simply a cost effective way of
of ensuring 24 hr cover, business would not use it otherwise.
We get no shift allowance, no unsocialble hours payments and
we do an excellent job. If you would like me to do hydrants
at night or communtiy fire safety at night i will, however the
public seem to get the hump when you refill at the hydrant outside
their house at 3am! But to say that you need less firefighters
at night is illconceived, a fire during the day needs the same
number of firefighters as one at night. The concept of the fire
service is to provide an ADEQUATE level of emergency response
at all times. Fire is fast moving aggresive and grows exponentially
for every minute it is allowed to continue - by increasing the
time it takes to arrive you increase the death rate. You appear
to be intelligent - you cannot deny that fact or these - the
majority of these Modernisation proposals are designed to save
money by reducing adequate cover and immediate response therefore
increasing attendance times Eg Reduction of work force, reduction
of appliances, increase in retained appliances (4 minute turnout),
allowing mixed crewing at all stations (ie delaying the first
wholetime pump whilst a retained member arrives 4 minutes later)
and removal of the 1947 fire services act which prevents Station
cuts, Appliance cuts and job cuts(retained and wholetime) it
also makes our attendance times legally binding unlike the police
and ambulance services. I agree with and work with retained
firefighters, but there is always a longer delay in turning
out and there is always a risk that there will not be a crew
- a common occurance in Herts. Quite simply we have an effective
and efficient fire service to change the basic function so radically
will destroy its performance. It is an interesting concept to
note that fire alone costs this country over £3 billion a year
which we all pay for in insurance, the link is clear longer
attendances mean more damage and the more we pay in insurance
- so even if there is no life risk at a fire the quicker it
is extingushed the less it costs. During the last strike the
government met half of all claims to insurance companies because
the cost of the claims for fire went through the roof. The armed
services have not been dealing with fires any differently than
they did then - it will be interesting to see! how much the
government pays up this time! And if they proceed to 'modernise'
then you will see an increase in insurance instead of your council
tax. |
| John,
UK |
Wednesday
3
December, 2002 |
|
| Andy
Luton, The reason people die in house fires BEFORE the we get
there is because they do not have a servicable smoke alarm,
this is something we have been addressing with community fire
safety visits, (something the Bain report wants us to do) We
have been doing it for at least the last 10 years. Unfortunately
childrens electronic game seem to take preference over smoke
detectors, so often there is no battery in the detector. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Wednesday
3
December, 2002 |
|
| Peter
of Hemel hasn't disputed 38 days leave, albeit including some
Saturdays and Sundays, so this must be true. Andy of Luton is
a bit out in his estimation of seven and a half weeks, though.
Because a fireman's rota is 2 days and 2 nights in an 8 day
period, he only needs to take 4 days leave to get a clear week
off. The bright fireman, presumably subject to being able to
get holiday relief, can thus take 9 weeks off and have a few
days to spare. Or, to put it another way, firemen get between
156 and 160 clear days off per year and another 40 which are
free from 9am. Compare this with the norm of 132 to 137. Oh,
and Peter, this not only includes weekends, but also Bank Holidays.
It is time you realised that you have it cushy. On your 2 day
shifts, you may be doing things other than emergency work which
will fill the time, but I doubt that you will inspect many hydrants
or give fire safety lectures to old dears during the night shifts.
If getting a fair night's sleep during a night shift is the
exception rather than the rule, I would be very surprised. |
| Richard
Heath, Bedford |
Wednesday
4
December, 2002 |
|
| I
think their are two sides to this argument over firemen's pay.
Firstly yes, the firefighters do risk their lives for others
and it's a fair point to say that they should get more money.
Secondly everyone knew this already so why the hell haven't
they had a pay rise already? Thirdly the emergency services
are important to all of us and we rely on them every day. Doing
the strike isn't helping anyone, causing uproar and endangering
people's lives. The strike should stop as soon as possible and
a resonable increase in pay should be given to them to keep
them happy and stop the madness, even if it isn't right. |
| Steve,
Leighton Buzzard |
Tuesday
3
December, 2002 |
|
| At
last,the FBU has seen the light! Sit down and talk, talk, talk
until a reasonable settlement is reached. It's a lot better
than "Bully Boy" tactics which in my opinion would
have lost u even more public support. |
| Peter,
Hemel Hempstead |
Tuesday
3
December, 2002 |
|
| Vince,
I am a Firefighter and highly offended by your remark I am not
a Beggar rattling buckets under peoples noses, and definately
not a killer as you put it. The Military Personnel have done
well during this dispute attending Fires and Road Traffic Accidents
only with 19.000 Personnel what about all the other types of
call that the normal Fire Services get called to, and all the
Community Fire Safety, Industrial visits and inspections. Is
the small number of calls (APPROX A THIRD) answered by the Military
a basis for cutting the Fire Service. Andy, 38 days includes
Saturdays and Sundays, No good at MATHS!! John, I don`t believe
in going back to the bad old 70`s. However Gullible Britain
YES pouring money into Asylum Seekers, EU (United Socialist
European Republic 'User for short'),Iraq and Government Lies.
Colin, For your qualification and the Job that you do you are
porrly paid as are all the Public Sector, they have all been
ignored for a very long time. As! for your comment that we don`t
rush into buildings, Oh yes we do ,I have personally done this
on a few occasions to carry out a snatch rescue without Breathing
Apparatus where seconds mean Life or Death. |
| Peter,
Bedford |
Tuesday
3
December, 2002 |
|
| "I'm
quite prepared to work to replace New Labour with what I'm prepared
to call Real Labour." Andy Gilchrist. Fire Fighters will not
achieve a settlement quickly if the motives of the FBU leadership
are as blatantly political as they appear to be from the remarks
of Mr Gilchrist. Public support will fall even faster if it
is the case that a seventies type challenge to the government
is part of the present strike strategy. |
| Barbara
Cooke, Hemel Hempstead |
Monday
2
December, 2002 |
|
| Well
said Jim and Che. Colin needs to get a life and not just quote
what 1 fireman and his family may or may not earn, not all fireman
including my husband have part time jobs he needs to get his
facts right before saying things he is not sure about we can
all read and see what the media want to say just to turn the
latest news to there way how else do they make their money?
I wonder who`s next to be pulled apart? maybe if the nurses
went out we would see how evil these people are don`t you think?
I only hope all the people including the goverment who are saying
disgusting things about the firefighters sleep well at night
and never want to come face to face with a firefighter may it
be walking down a street or needing them to rescue them out
of a situation they could have or could not avoided be it in
their home, car, stuck in a lift or any other situation they
are paid to do. If these people are human they will not be able
to look them in the eye for feeling guilty ! calling them such
EVIL people, they are human and I am sure you will need them
more than they ever will need you. Remember this strike is about
pay. So putting these people down for wanting a fair pay and
putting the likes of these people first in the job they do and
have done for years to make our lives safe is not the right
way to do things.I am sure we feel sorry for prince`s william
and Harry reading bad things about their mother well I can say
as a parent my children are not happy to see a few arrogant
people call their father EVIL AND A KILLER! |
| Steve,
Leighton Buzzard |
Monday
2
December, 2002 |
|
| In
reply 2 che,perhaps the fbu should take note of mr lyons of
the amicus union.he is living in the real world,not gilchrist.get
real che,the fbu executive is a throw-back 2 the silly seventies
|
| Colin
Crane, Bedford |
Monday
2
December, 2002 |
|
|
I believe that the firemen should have a decent wage and I believe
that they have got a decent wage already. I work in a hospital
lab and would like to earn the firemens wage as it is! I have
work colleagues earning less than £10k, they also pick up bits
of bodies while at work, there was a lab job that required a
degree that paid less than £12k starting pay that eventually
would earn you about £14k (with a good science degree!!!)I am
currently earning £15K and I am also a Borough Councillor and
that provides a further £4k, I regularly attend 3 or four evening
meetings and frequently work more hours than a fireman for much
less money-I am highly trained and would not dream of strike
action in a similar situation! I still do not see £20K a year!
My life is also at risk as is any worker whether a lorry driver
/ taxi driver etc any job carries its risks. Firemen do not
rush into burning buildings to rescue people, there is a careful
risk assessment and they will enter if safe to do so and then
only with the appropriate training and safety equipment! They
keep talking about £7 per hour or whatever take home pay when
most of the ordinary working men and women do not even get that
rate in the first place, before further stoppages. I would like
to know just who is supposedly on this mythical average wage
of £400+ whatever per week as I am sure it is not the average
manual worker(or are the NHS really that poor payers?) I was
a time served apprentice electrician and have found that even
with a string of various qualifications you still get made redundant
when in your mid fifties, you cannot retire or claim any pension
as can the firemen but end up taking a really low paid job just
to get any work as nobody values the "older person?. So we all
can suffer but the rest of us just get on and do it! Voluntary
overtime argument:- if they are working a 48 hour week and feel
it unsafe to work longer hours how are they carrying out second
jobs? just greedy. The husband and wife firefighters recently
moaning on TV must bring in £40k+ between them and still cannot
manage on that? they are obviously not worth a £30k individual
wage as they mustlack intelligence and common sense? They say
they cannot buy a home on their money? do all of their neighbours
also earn high wages? I suspect they manage like the rest of
us have to? |
| Jim,
UK |
Monday
2
November, 2002 |
|
|
I have read with disgust the amount of ignorance that is being
displayed on this subject.There is a simple reality that can
explain all the different viewpoints that are being put forward
to knock the fire fighters. Ask yourself this question 'do I
have all of the following qualities'? Compassion, benevolence,
generosity, courage, honour, devotion, tolerance, selflessness,
patience, dedication. If the answer is no to just one, then
it is a waste of time trying to convince you of the importance
of the fire fighters plight, because you lack the credentials
to understand. This explains why so many apply to join the service,
and so few are admitted.The filtering process weeds out those
that do not face up to the fact that they lack all of the above
qualities. Those that are in a position of power over the fire
fighters, definitely lack the majority, if not all of those
qualities. Fire fighters cannot be compared to any other profession.
They are the only emergency servi! ce that has to meet attendance
times by law. They are the only service that attends literally
all types of emergency . They are often faced with situations
that are life threatening, where a split second decision can
influence the outcome of an incident. So what if they can sleep
at night. Surely, the paramount, overriding consideration must
be that they are available, fully staffed, fully trained and
fully motivated. Does it not make sense, to make sure that the
UK’s premier emergency service, is at least in a state of contentment?
What is the point in ending up with a broken, de-motivated and
demoralised service? I shudder to think what the consequences
could be if the government implements the cuts it wants. |
| stacey,
aylesbury |
Sunday
1
December, 2002 |
|
| As
the wife of a firefighter I would just like to say that no firefighter
wants to be on strike and would much rather be at work. On the
first walk out my husband said this had to be the worst day
of his career. Its time to back our firefighters and get this
horrible mess sorted out. |
| john,
Mk |
Sunday
1
December, 2002 |
|
| So
now at last, the real reason for the strike has been revealed.replace
New Labour, with "Real Labour" ,says FBU. This must refer to
the good Old days of mass pickets,Miners and local authority
strikes.Tube drivers union comrade , Bob CROW & the Crow-nie,s
wants to support FBU Aims.So there you are Firepersons, You
got" Highjacked" Sad but true, GB means "Gullible Britain". |
| Ivor,
Aylesbury |
Saturday
30
November, 2002 |
|
| Firemen
who can't survive on twentythree thousand per year are in the
wrong job and should go and find another. There job is no where
near as dangerous as a Prison Officer's job and they are not
allowed by law to strike. Come on firemen live within your means
or get another job. |
| Andy,
Luton |
Saturday
30
November, 2002 |
|
| Why
are the firefigters comming out with so much bull on these pages.
It is true as they say that most people die in fires at night.
But almost all of them die BEFORE the fire service arrive (because
everyone is asleep so they dont get called)If you were to double
the number of firemen on duty you would save no more!If we halve
the number asleep in the station, no more will die! you know
it's true so CUT THE BULL. Is it true that firemen get 38 days
holiday, thats severn and a half WEEKS not bad eh? |
| che,
stevenage |
Friday
29
November, 2002 |
|
| Steve,
i would have to say that in theory a no strike agreement would
be good, however we live in a real world and people take advantage
of inaction - take the police for instance how many Police Stations
have closed in recent years despite protestations from the public
and the police federation? In essex a number of years ago they
tried to withdraw an aerial appliance stating it wasnt needed,
the union went on strike and succeded in having it kept (there
were not going to be job loses or pay cuts etc) the week after
the strike that appliance saved 11 lives from a fire in a block
of flats. Now you may not agree with the tactic but it was proven
to be right and perhaps if the ambulance service still had the
right there would be more ambulances to serve Herts - sometimes
there are just four ambulances covering a million people in
herts - this is why waiting 20 minutes for an ambulance is a
common occurance. There have been many comparisons between the
nurses and us and it interesting to point out that they still
have the right to strike and i believe they have used it in
the past as well. The fact is we have been on strike only once
in 82 years because of pay up until the current strike. |
| che,
stevenage |
Friday
29
November, 2002 |
|
| Vince,
you obviously believe i am a polititian pre-desposed to tell
half truths well i am not i am an ordinary Firefighter. You
know which station i am at come down and tell me where i am
lying and i will give you my side, you can then make your own
mind up. By calling me a killer you imply that is the very nature
of all Firefighters - something i would describe as hurtful
and untruthful at the very least. I can say without a doubt
i have saved many lives and in fact have continued to do so
despite being on strike as im sure the van driver at Hooks Cross
would be pleased to tell you. Its funny because when i was called
to the Hatfield rail crash the papers and Mr blair couldnt say
enough about what a great job we did and Mrs Follett echoed
those words yet she will not even answer my letters when it
comes to a real issue, it just shows how impotent she is. As
for being beggars well i've never begged in my life - i've worked
hard throughout it to provide for my family (obviously an outdated
quality). The simple fact is we have been to the town to try
and talk to people like you who disagree or perhaps dont understand
what it is all about, we dont force people to think our way
and we dont preach, we let people know the other side of the
story giving good reasons for it. If people want to donate money
then they can. Out of interest would you call them accomplices
to murder? When we are in the town 'Begging' for charities i
dont see you berrating us for our disgusting behavior then.
I dont know where you got the idea that we believe the army
have killed anyone, what we believe and know is they are inadequately
trained and are being made to be something they are not. The
RAF rescue unit at hooks cross had one firefighter incharge
who had not long been out of basic training 1 Raf police officer
and a fire safety advisor - so much for being skilled firefighters
- that is why they had no hope of saving that van drivers life.
And the Green Goddess crew had just 1 and a half hours training!
What happened to the 6 weeks intensive training? Yet again the
government tells you one thing yet the reality is another. I
look forward to seeing you at the fire station for what will
be an interesting conversation, unlike the politicians i wont
duck a question i dont like and will give you full and truthful
answers. |
| Bill
Stevenson, Stevenage |
November,
2002 |
|
| To
Nigel of Luton. I have read all of your comments and up to this
point have disagreed with all of them. However your latest comment
on increasing the retirement age to 65 and getting these people
to do the community advise, hydrant checks and other non front
line duties is spot on. Unfortunately, I doubt if the Government
would even entertain the idea as it does not adress the fact
that they want to cut staffing levels in the fire service. |
| Vince,
Stevenage |
Fri
29 November, 2002 |
|
| So
Che, you say the only way to get a reasonable response about
the firefighters strike is to speak to a fireman! Rubbish! All
you will get is spin that the union has told you to say. Just
the same as if you ask a MP for their opinion. Yes you do deserve
some sort of payrise, as does everyone else in this country,
but to hold the public to ransom is wrong. People are dying
in fires and accidents and it is all down to you, not the army
or government. You should be ashamed of being on strike and
most of the striking firefighters are nothing worse than beggars
rattling your buckets in our faces in Stevenage town centre.
Get back to work and stop killing innocent people. |
| steve,
leighton buzzard |
Fri
29 November, 2002 |
|
| further
2 my last e mail, in return 4 extra money how about a no strike
agreement as in other essential services. Comments welcome |
| che,
stevenage |
Fri
29 November, 2002 |
|
| Peter,
the government want us to do these areas of community fire safety,
fire safety enforcement, petroleum inspections etc. you may
well be right that these areas could be done more cheaply by
other staff however there are good reasons why it is given to
us as a task, in terms of fire safety enforcement we carry out
inspections because we are the enforcing authority similar to
the way the Health and Safety executive looks into safe practice
at work. It is not just going to existing buildings but officers
also advise, recommend and approve safe designs for new buildings
and conversions etc. it is performed by us because we do have
experience of the way fire grows, reacts and develops and allows
crews to become familiar with the fire regulations so that at
a fire or other incident we can recognise breaches in regulation.
Community fire safety has been pushed more and more ! by! government
and for good reason it will help to prevent fire deaths in the
home. This includes trying to target people in vulnerable categories
and supplying and fitting smoke detectors and visiting schools
and getting the fire safety message over to the children who
may then push that advice to their parents. In one respect it
does make sense other than getting the message 'direct' from
firefighters and that is productivity, we do train regularly
but there are days when there are not many calls and once the
equipment has been checked, tested and cleaned etc without this
work you would be sitting around doing nothing as the army currently
demonstrates. Therefore it does make sense for a workforce with
vehicles, an intimate knowledge of their local area and the
time and expertise to advise on these subjects to do this task
and I would suspect it is in the long run a cheaper and more
efficient way of performing it. In terms of firefighters doing
overtime the main reason it has never been done in the past
is simply the way the pay formula worked, meaning quite simply
if firefighters were carrying out vast amounts of overtime the
year before it would reduce the pay award for the next year,
it is a complicated calculation but that is what it simply boils
down to. Another aspect is that following a 48 hour shift the
union believes that in terms of health and safety you shouldn't
work anymore hours, it is interesting to note that most jobs
are a basic 37.5 hours a week because of the working times directive
however the fire service among others were given an exemption
from this. Firefighters are rightly concerned that we may go
the way of the ambulance service where overtime is rife and
there are simply not enough staff leaving ambulances idle because
there are no staff to crew them, this leads to the scenario
that if people refuse overtime (it is now illegal for compulsory
overtime) then fire engines will be left idle as well - something
that never happens now. Peter, I have written an answer to your
entire comment however it is so long I don't think they would
post it! needless to say I'm sure I could change your opinion
of the proposed modernisation. Most ideas for modernisation
do need investment to prevent and reduce deaths under the governments
Best Value directives. I do think most of the cost efficiencies
that would save money and not effect the emergency response
are token savings - because the service does perform extremely
well. |
| Barbara
Choke, Heel Hempstead Herts |
Fri
29 November, 2002 |
|
| I
Have been reading the peoples comments on here for the past
few weeks and have worked it out that the only people that are
behind the strike are those that really understand what they
are ( the firefighters ) trying to achieve. I sat a fire station
on Monday listening to vice president, king , Tony Blair NOT
answering direct questions that the press were putting to him.
The only thing to come out of the kings mouth was to tell the
world that the fireman are so important that they are going
to ruin the country big time,not himself and his puppets who
got their BIG pay rise,and the puppet Gordon Brown who cant
do maths and on tuesday declared to the world that G.B. are
going to have to borrow money to keep our head above water.
Its funny how they managed to sort their wage rise out first.
They as they keep going on about are the ones that do the book
keeping of our financial! l situations,well so far apart from
keeping the likes of lapdog prescott etc in pocket the rest
of their employees i.e. firefighters, teachers,nurses,etc don't
seem to be on the same wave length as them, as we have all read
about in the papers. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Fri
29 November, 2002 |
|
| To
Che and other firefighters: Compromise is the only way forward.
Obviously, you're not going to get 40% or anything remotely
like it. To get 16%, you will have to accept some changes in
practices - what has been suggested in this respect, I haven't
a clue, though as nobody seems able to agree on it, it probably
doesn't matter anyway. Why not, instead, push for raising the
retirement age to 65. This will gain you support from the public
who resent your current very early retirement. The more elderly
(relatively) firefighters could then take over the training,
community awareness and hydrant checking etc, leaving the active
crews to concentrate on their prime role. A cost saving to government
is that they could do this in pairs in a 40mpg vehicle, rather
than in fives with a 6mpg vehicle. The firefighters could then
see an immediate increase in their income as a re! sult of a
lower outlay in pension contribution. I'm guessing, but say
from 11% to 5%. You wouldn't need to build up such a massive
pension as currently because in later years, you would still
be receiving an income. The government (or employers, depending
on how you draw the line) would see a further cost saving as
they would be expected to contribute 10% of your salary rather
than 22%. Just an idea - discuss it among yourselves, then mention
it to your FBU rep. Everybody saves face and you get 6% on top
of whatever pay increase is offered - at no cost to the government. |
more
comments
»
|
