|
|
 |
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 |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
| In
response to you saying i should get another job well i do actually
enjoy my job it gives me a personal pride and satisfaction that
i have made a positive difference to peoples lives something
that i am not ashamed to admit or should be used as a reason
to dismiss my skills and appropriate pay for them. Funnily enough
my previous job was more dangerous than firefighting not in
respect of danger of the job but in the way health and safety
is brushed aside and only paid lip service to (even by me).
It was also higher paid with similar hours and had greater than
four weeks holiday the only downside to the job was that it
was a 'meanial job' and everyday people would speak and look
at you as if you were some kind of scumbag. I was only unemployed
once and went out and got myself a job within a week i didnt
mope about scrounging off the state for years because im not
interested in working as some are. In fact despite the long
hours i actually gave up my own time and chances of even better
paid overtime so that i could 'volunteer' to the well being
of my country something being a firefighter actually bars me
from legally continuing. My wife and i come from humble beginnings
and have achieved everything in life by our own hard work and
that includes our careers. If i worked in the real world i would
be on a damn sight more than £21500 not because i have any qualifications
to write home about but because i am prepared to work hard and
find solutions to problems that may present themselves. I am
not controlled by a desire to earn more money otherwise i would
have stayed in the job i did before or joined the police a far
easier organisation to get in and oddly higher paid with better
and more allowances for a job with similar skill levels. My
wife works a reduced week so she can see her son and i as i
have said before get to see him more than the average dad, dont
blame me for for taking offence to your claim i get far too
much time with my family after all it was tony blair and his
government that invented 'family friendly' public services so
excuse me if i take personal offence to your inferences of being
lazy and overpaid they are simply not true. I am not a bad person,
do not treat me as one just because i feel that i am undervalued
for the skills i have and am prepared to act to change that. |
| che,
stevenage |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
I
do not want to see the service I/we provide destroyed by a desire
to save cost rather than to make it a better service - after
all to do that this would require investment as the 4 year £1.5
million shelved Pathfinder report suggests.
I am not an FBU rep I am a concerned firefighter - and member
of the tax paying public. With regard to wholetime firefighters
being able to do retained in their time off well as it happens
that is actually permitted and is carried out by at least a
third of my station collegues - and these Wholetime-retained
staff are incidently all on strike. However as the union disagrees
with it as a principle and any union has rules they are therefore
not able to be members of the union, however they do believe
that their skills deserve an appropriate salary and that they
believe is substantially more than has been offered. You explain
about the following of the workforce ie that during the day
555,000 people occupy the city and then at night they all go
home leaving 5000 in this area. I'm sure you would agree that
people should come first in any priority however property must
still be a high priority and protected,for instance the bishopsgate
bomb cost the country and economy both locally and nationally
billions of pounds - large fires would and do cost companies
millions and also costs jobs because many firms downsize or
even close as a result of a major fire so a reasonable provision
is nessacery for that purpose and interestingly enough current
fire standards are based on property risks not people so in
those terms alone the current allocation of resources is sufficient.
What the scenario should be is actually increasing staff avalible
at night in areas such as Hertfordshire because counties such
as these are where the people go at night (that is why i cannot
afford a house here) however this subject is not broached by
Bain because it would actually cost more however it was achieved.
It is a fact that direct exposure to smoke will kill you in
three minutes and we will arrive at your door within five minutes
now this time anonamoly needs to be tackled because as you know
people still die in fires. People are often not in the same
room as the seat of the fire so the period between ignition
and first becoming effected by smoke adds vital minutes to the
equation. There are two avenues open to you to decrease fire
deaths the first is build more fire stations so that you can
respond in three minutes or ensure that everyone has a method
of alert to a fire within their home ie smoke detectors. Well
the second option is more economically viable and is being carried
out in community fire safety programs - however the government
are not that bothered about it otherwise they would have included
domestic hardwired smoke detectors and domestic sprinklers in
the latest building regulation laws. Unfortunately that was
removed under pressure from business I have also noticed that
we will not be trained to Paramedic standards as said previously
by Bain because this will cost way too much and require funnily
enough proper Paramedic training, but we will be trained to
higher medical standards to deal with incidents we may face
- is that along the lines of Basic Trauma and Life Support courses?
Ones that we already do? Ones where we use resusitators and
defibs that we already carry on fire appliances? The FBU do
allow mixed crewing where it is viable - that means when it
doesnt compromise the response of the appliance, for instance
they and I quite reasonably would not agree that the following
scenario was applicable:- 3 wholetime firefighters on duty at
a station a call comes in and they have to wait for the 4th
member of the crew to arrive because he/she is retained (and
therefore on a 4 minute response time) thus delaying the turnout.
However a system already exists at stations that have day crewing
where both retained and wholetime members ride the same appliances
with the FBU backing! So elitism and made up claims that it
costs lives because it doesnt happen are quite honestly stupid
in there thinking and simply untrue. The FBU did actually try
to have meaningful dialogue with the employers for over 6 months
however the employers ONLY responded on the day that the ballot
result was announced so actually the union did try and resolve
this 'from within' and even almost had a deal signed to end
the dispute that was binding AND meant any and every issue brought
up for negotiation would have been dealt with - the only reason
it was rejected by government was because the union would have
actually been able to bring issues that potentially save lives
and quite probably would of required investment to the table
such as funding for Road Traffic Accidents (currently paid for
solely by the locally county taxpayers! Or investment in Community
Fire Safety Programs or even provision of womens toilets on
fire stations!. The full text of the bain report is on a union
sponsored website and can be found by using the link to the
pay campaign website. oh and "I finally understand that Nigel
of Luton is not in favour of reducing the night shift." but
is in favour of Mr Bains idea of reducing the level of cover
of the night shift! As mr Blair says "dont belive everything
you read in the paper!" |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
|
A final comment: The Inland Revenue also considers a "Second
job" to be different to "Undisclosed earnings." |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
|
Why has no firefighter criticised specific items in the Bain
Review? Could it be that the FBU website has a link entitled
"Full text of Bain report" which leads to a document only 10
pages long? If you are looking for the full document (which
is 175 pages long), you can find it in the Retained Firefighters
Union website. I've only got about half way through it so far,
but it seems a well-presented document, especially considering
the short time scale in which it has been produced. So far,
I can fault it on only two issues. 1 - the recommended pay rise
matches Prescott's figures and I don't know which came first.
2 - it brands the fire service as institutionally racist, though
given current norms of political correctness, was probably a
mandate of it's inauguration. I may have further disageements
as I read further, but so far, many of my previous comments
have been included. The review criticises the FBU for its obstructions
in its production and for obstructing earlier trials of changed
working practices, but does give credit to the FBU for some
aspects of working procedure. It gives reasons for its decisions,
some of which do appear to have a political slant, but many
of the concepts seem valid. Firefighters talk of closing stations
at night, but the review explains this a means of following
the commuting workforce. During office hours, an extra 500,000
people enter the City of London but go back to the suburbs in
the evening. Where is the logic in maintaining a night-time
service to cover 555,000 people when only 5,000 people are resident?
The Bain review does not necessarily propose redundancies -
it suggests that the firefightersare moved out at night-time
to cover the areas where the commuters are living. All of the
staffing levels are decided by the local Fire Authority, considering
day and night population levels, rather than by a single organisation
which is ignorant of local requirements. This sounds like sheer
common sense. There is also talk of breaking down some of the
FBU's rules, but only in the respect that it gives the individual
firefighter a right to choose for himself (excuse gender). What
are the Wholetime firefighters? Sheep? The only job that the
FBU say that a firefighter can't do outside the service is that
of a Retained firefighter. The FBU also don't allow Wholetime
and Retained firefighters to crew the same vehicle. Where is
the logic in this when lives may be at risk? Do FBU members
consider themselves elitist? And to the extent that lives are
lost? I'm sorry, but my conscience wouldn't allow me to remain
a member of a union like that. Purely out of principle, I would
walk proudly through the picket lines (or to a Green Goddess)
and make a claim for any increase from WITHIN the station to
signify my isolation from a disreputable organisation. |
| Bill
Stevenson, Stevenage |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
| Can
anybody explain to me why the fire service needs to modernise?
In what way is it inefficient? It's not an organisation designed
to make a profit, it is there to save lives and property, which
it does with 96% efficiency (government figures not mine). I
am extremely suspicious of the independence of the Bain report
as it echoes exactly what the government has wanted all along:
Job cuts and station closures. The majority of people complain
about how long it took for the Police to attend a crime, or
how long it took for an ambulance to respond to a heart attack
victim. The same is now about to happen to the Fire Service.
The Government has it's own agenda which it will force through
regardless. The Bain review is just a vehicle to enable them
to do it. Each successive Government has decimated the public
services under the guise of "modernisation". I have seen similar
terms used in the private sector, "downsizing" is my favourite,
they both mean the same thing, job losses. Our Firefighters,
Police Officers, Paramedics and Nurses are our protectors and
saviors. I look at them as an insurance policy. And like all
insurance policies I hope I never have need to use it, but I
very glad I have it. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
|
One of my first comments on this forum related to a firefighter
knocking the Armed Services, saying that they had just attended
a fire that the Army couldn't have coped with, then went on
to say that the building (Luton Methodist Hall) was 100% destroyed.
It seems Che attended the same school. His defence of full-time
staffing of fire stations at night was that crews could get
to a fire within 5 minutes. Then he went on to say that people
died of smoke inhalation within 3 minutes. I could be sarcastic
and suggest that that there seems little point in dialling 999.
Instead, I'll just advise the firefighters to be more careful
when putting two sentences in one paragraph. Some more advice
for firefighters - put some bricks or other fire-resistant material
under your braziers. Borehamwood Fire Station has a nice patch
of destroyed asphalt outside where somebody (or perhaps 2 or
4 watches) didn't consider the hazards of fire during the first
2-day strike. Will the firefighters offer the cost of repair?
|
| Nigel,
Luton |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
| Che:
Yet again you have not read correctly what I have written. With
regard to Wholetime firefighters doing Retained duties my words
were, "the ideal situation would be if Wholetime firefighters
could also undertake Retained duties during their off-duty periods.
Look up "could" in the dictionary. It infers "be permitted to,"
not "obliged." The Retained service is staffed by volunteers
(note volunteers begins with a small "v," not to be confused
with Volunteers, which begins with a big "V," and is another
branch of the Fire Service). If you don't think you get paid
enough, why don't you quit Wholetime (there are plenty of people
eager to take your place), get a 9-5 job (where you think you'll
get £30k) and, because you care about the safety of the community,
enrol at a Retained Station (there are lots of vacancies and
I'm sure they would be keen to take you on). Or do you have
the fear that you will only get £17k (or perhaps look forward
to a Giro), your wife will have to give up her apparently highly
paid job to look after the kids, you will only get four weeks
holiday, no opportunity to enhance your income and get restless
weekends because of your Retained commitment? My disparaging
comments notwithstanding, I don't think you're stupid. |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
| Che:
If you want me to use correct terms, I'm willing to waste time
once (though you have much more available). The Retained firefighters'
income deriving from their Fire Service duties includes, but
is not necessarily limited to: Annual Retaining Fee, Turn-out
Fee, Pre-arranged Attendance Fee, Extra Payment for Remaining
on duty, Attendance Fee, Drill Attendance Fee and Long Service
Bounty. Not all of these are wages, not all are fees. The term
"allowances" saves time, space and, if you are printing this
forum, trees. Are you trying to avoid the main issue? |
| Nigel,
Luton |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
| Che:
You must be an FBU rep, READ ALL THE WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN,
NOT JUST A SELECTIVE FEW. THE INCLUSION OF THE WORD "NOT" COMPLETELY
CHANGES THE MEANING OF A SENTENCE. I reiterate, yet again, I
am NOT NOT NOT (has it sunk in?) in favour of reducing the staffing
of the night shift. Next time you write, include the phrase,
"I finally understand that Nigel of Luton is not in favour of
reducing the night shift." Thank you. |
more
comments
»
|
