The £30k package recommended by the report also recommended a change in working practises, however the union has rejected all reforms. The revised 11% over 2 years figure was attained considering the same working practises.

The FBU want the money but are not prepared to reform.

Withdrawing essential services is not a right (and clearly not a "human" right as Harmonia tried to convince us).

Withdrawing essential services in peacetime is immoral and wrong. Withdrawing those services in a time of war would be treason.

If what ZygoticMynciBoy said is true they already get £21,000 a year. This is 33% more than nurses, who work a full work week, not the 10% of a work week that a firefighter works. What is the deal here?

And don't say that nurses aren't putting their lives on the line. They have to deal with the unknown every day too, and they all have to worry about AIDS and other blood-borne diseases.

Mayo, have I got it wrong? you have became a trenchant critic of Bush's plan for war while I was away in Florence?

Or are you still peddling the "its a price worth paying" about dead civilians.

Captain, we dont have laws like Taft-hartley that forbid strikes. However Blair is whispering that we soon might.

MayoBoy:

Yes, I've been following this the last couple of days and knew there had been 3 others. It does not, however, negate the fact that there were firefighters on scene, whether "reserve" or "professional". It is unfortunate, but not everyone can be saved, even by "professional" firefighters.

So Leeds, firemen are slaves then?

Xane, do you know what these "reforms" actually are?

BTW Grade e nurses probably get about £26, iirc.

Leeds: you forgot to add that a standard shift pattern for a firefighter is 2 days on, 6 days off with 2 nights on-call, compared to a nurse this is "part-time".

Captain_America

If a union of workers that represents 95% of the total number of firemen chooses to strike what are you going to do? Sack/arrest them all?

It is irresponsible to strike, but if nothing else is taken seriously by smugs asshats in suits you're really left with the choice of put up with it, or quit - and most of these guys got into the job for more than it being a job.

It's simply a case of everyone in one industry saying "no".

So 48 hours a week is part-time Xane?

How many hours a week do you work?

Harmonia: yes, reforms like opening up the service to ethnic minorities and women, for example.

Oh so its the rank and file firefighters who do the recruiting to the service?

Weird, thats unusual, usually its managers and hr departments who do the recruitment, not the guys on £21,000 a year.

Is there any bit of propaganda you dont swallow whole Xane, Alistair Campbell must love people like you.

Harmonia

I have never stated my opinion one way or the other regarding war with Iraq.

So once again - please state where I said that I was in favor of hundreds of thousands of civilians dying.

If you can't keep your arguements based in fact, perhaps you should keep your mouth closed.

Compared to a nurse it is, especially as the 48-hour week includes resting, sleeping and eating whilst on duty.

Leeds
"Withdrawing essential services is not a right"

Um yes it is, it's upto the goverment to maintain essential services not the individuals.

"If what ZygoticMynciBoy said is true they already get £21,000 a year. This is 33% more than nurses, who work a full work week, not the 10% of a work week that a firefighter works"

First: Firefighters only work 7-10 hours a week?
Second: Bringing in nurses, teachers etc into this argument like this seems to assume that they are paid well. This is not the case however so this argument is flawed. Just because one public sector group is badly paid dosn't mean everyone should be.

So Leeds, firemen are slaves then? -Harmonia

No, they can always quit. If that were to happen, the volunteers would most likely be put on full time duty until replacements were brought in.

I've already answered this question for you though, you need only read my posts below. I have humored you this time out of kindness/pity.

You mean propaganda like associating me with the Labour Party, surely you're not bunging up your own ass there Harmonia.

And "rank and file" firefighters _do_ have a say, that's so many sons and nephews exist in the service, unless there was some FBU study that showed firefighting is genetic.

Its disgusting that firefighters are happy to risk civilian lives over money. Nice to know how much money we're worth. 40% is greedy in my opinion, most fire fighters work halve the hours of full time labourers, with most of their days filled eating bacon butties at the station. What is stopping them from getting a part time job ? or perhaps having them working monday->friday like most people in their proprosed earnings bracket. For starters, critical public services should not be allowed to strike either, imagine what would happen if the police went on strike (martial law anyone?). Stupid whining socialists.

Blumf- As I clearly stated in that post, all of my figures came from a post from ZygoticMynciBoy. If you feel them to be in error, perhaps you should address that point. Attacking my summary is hardly intelligent.

I am getting the feeling that the communist side of this argument is being fought by people who can't seem to read an entire post before they start misquoting it. Your points will all be taken far more seriously if you make sense ladies.

Xane - like associating me with the Labour Party

What is this Labour Party you speak of? I only see the Conservative Party, and the New Conservative Party.

Cnlfailure
ok so this is my understanding of it and like i said it is a US point of view.
they are in a union, with a collectively bargained contract. part of that contract is not to strike. they want to strike. shouldn't some sort of goverment mediator get involved here. and by the way i think firefighters are great guys and all but they did know the pay/risks when they got involved. they are allowed to quit and find something else to do. doesn't a stike hurt the publics safety. didn't regan do sominthing with air-traffic controller in the 80's. someone help me out with this i am a little to young.

Scorpzr

You could also word it :

Its disgusting that the government is happy to risk civilian lives over money.

Mayboy, you're truly being ridiculous. You say that no one forced them to become firemen, and then say that they should HAVE to be firemen.

You're right, no one held a gun to their head and forced them to be firemen. And now, they've looked at their situation, and decided how much they're being paid isn't worth risking their lives when they can't even have a decent living as a result. So now they're saying "give us more money or we won't be firemen anymore". Seems perfectly reasonable to me. If they're worth it, pay them. If not, find a better group or live with the fires.

What do you want to do, hold a gun to their head and force them to be firemen?

that's "MAYOboy" (')_(')

curse my human fingers.

Out of curiosity, is there any law or other reason that the government can't step in and fire the whole lot of them? If that were to happen, the government would be cleared to refill the ranks with others who are still willing to put out fires and save lives.

If on the other hand, it is not legal for the government to summarrily fire them- then this whole issue falls squarely on the shoulders of the strikers.

Anyone know the law over there on that?

Cnlfailure:
Ill stick with my original wording thanks. The Government has responded to the situation by drafting in the army. Firefighters going on strike is akin to blackmail, plain and simple. "Pay me huge sums of money for sitting around half the day, or we'll all go on strike, causing tens, possibly hundreds of fire-related deaths which we have a responsibility and duty to prevent"

...

Leeds
"As I clearly stated in that post, all of my figures came from a post from ZygoticMynciBoy. If you feel them to be in error, perhaps you should address that point. Attacking my summary is hardly intelligent."

But your summary was very very wrong (10%?? Where did that come from, inc. Zygotic's post?).

I'm might be tempted to play with Zygotic's post but in the mean time could to counter my point about compairing firefighters pay to nurses being misleading and flawed? Thanks.

.....

...


Firemen should be shot.

*ducks, runs*

SilverDraghyeon

Mayboy, you're truly being ridiculous. You say that no one forced them to become firemen, and then say that they should HAVE to be firemen.

Could you please quote where I said people HAVE to be firemen?


If they're unhappy with their conditions then they need to find new employment. If they're going to remain fireman, then they must uphold the public safety as is their sworn duty.

Another point of contention with this strike. If the firefighters have beef with the government then why arent they taking action against them (e.g., letting them burn in their burning houses) - instead, its the public who suffer. gee, thanks guys, what a valuable asset to society you firemen are.

Blumf-

You seem nice enough, so I'll help you out here. You wondered where the 10% came from. I stated when I typed it exactly where it came from. Then you replied once again that you couldn't find it. Here it is, in its entirety. In the future, please scroll up and down the page to find posts rather than force people to re-post them for you. Thanks,
-L


11-15-02 10:06:52 AM ZygoticMynciBoy
Okay, I consider myself to be a pretty liberal-minded person, and I sympathise with anyone who wants a payrise, but a few things bug me:

Firefighters do not risk their lives every day fighting fires. Their job is 23rd most dangerous in that stupid "league table" that was printed in just about every newspaper in Britain today.

They are actually working for approximately 10% of their shift. Compare that to a nurse, or a doctor.

They work a shift pattern of 4 days on, then get 4 days off. Again, compare that to a nurse who works 5 days on, 2 days off.

They already earn £7,000 P.A. more than nurses.

They are asking for 40%. They've already been offered 11%. They should take the 11% and STFU.

Leeds:

While that is a good thought, "fire them all and fill the ranks with the willing", would that not exacerbate the problem? After all, you can't pull any swinging d**k off the street and hand him a hose, expecting him to know how to pump the truck, how to safely enter a burning structure, etc.

does anyone find it ironic that a guy like Harmonia who want's to avoid war at all costs to prevent civilian casualties with a dictator who has defied UN resoulutions and is activly seeking or has WMD is supporting the rights of firefighters to strike for more money when that may also cost civilian lives? and no i don't want a flame war with you Harmonia i just personally feel that your statements are ironic.

Leeds
"Out of curiosity, is there any law or other reason that the government can't step in and fire the whole lot of them?"

Basicly if they did do that (regardless of law) there would be an almighty shiat-storm from the other unions that would make the 1970's look like a peaceful time of co-operation between unions and industry.

Captain_America:
i agree entirely.

Captain_America

I wouldn't say ironic, I'd say hypocritical. The US is evil for killing civilians over politics but the firemen are heros for killing civilians over money.

Captain, I could spend 10 mins deconstruting that post, but lets not it being Friday and all.

I believe in peace, hence no to war (not in all circimstances of course) and the rights of working people.

I dont seee any contradiction.

So mayo, boy of mystery, What is your position on war with Iraq?

Blumf-

I think that you are mistakenly feeling that there are large numbers of communists left in the UK. I am under the impression that there are only a few. Most people appreciate all of the harm: lost productivity, wasted money, time, (lives), and efficiency that unions cause.

If there was to be a scandal, don't you think that the public would side against the unions and on the side of safety?

So firefighters are killing civilians now? funny then that they are all rushing, unpaid to any fire where lives are at stake.

So mayo, boy of mystery, What is your position on war with Iraq?

When a "War on Iraq" thread is posted, you can read it there. This isn't the place for it.

I read that they want a 40% rise so their wage equals that of a Tube driver - £30,000 a year.
Personally, I think a raise of that magnitude is over the top, but the real question is; "why are Tube drivers earning £30k a year"? - How dangerous is driving a train?!

"Peace" is not the same as "No War".

been to the UK often Leeds?

Or, at my wild guess, never?

Harmonia- 6 Times, although it has been several years since I was last there. The last time I was there Tony Blair was on the front page of all of the papers for driving a coast guard boat without a boating liscense. (If that dates it)

Perhaps you have all become cold, heartless communists in the past 2 years. I doubt that though.

I'm a fireman, and so is my wife!

Leeds

OK I think I see your confusion here..

"They are actually working for approximately 10% of their shift. Compare that to a nurse, or a doctor."

In other words, they are out on call 10% of the time. So maybe they should only be paid when they're out there with a hose in their hand putting out a fire. When the call comes in they could all line up and clock-in before getting in the fire truck.

Do you not want them to be paid for the refresher courses and practices they undertake too? (Station near me gets through a fair few scrap cars they practice on with the 'jaws of life')

Its a damm shame they don't work 100% of the shift, I think people should start more fires in their homes so they have to.

P.S. You still haven't countered my point about the nurses. Way should nuses be paid crap, and why does that make it ok to pay other people badly?

Just to exemplify the position:

source - Glouscestershire Fire Brigade

The starting salary ranges from £16,941 to £17,208. On promotion to Station Officer you can expect to earn in excess of £27,000.

Firefighters have 28 days annual leave each year. You will also receive a paid holiday on, or in respect of, public holidays and two extra statutory holidays.

An average working week is one of 42 hours and limited overtime is payable when appropriate. Working a shift pattern of 2 day shifts 0900 - 1800, 2 night shifts 1800 - 0900 and 4 days off

Scorpzr

The amount they are asking for isn't that huge. I'd far sooner have them sitting round half the day ready for action for when my house/car/head is on fire.

How much would you want to be paid in order to go into a burning building every day?

Incidently, the 11% (4%,7% over 2 years) argument misses another detail - the amount received does not go to every fire figher - rather it goes into the central coffers, so trainees may get 5%, vets get 3% or however it's divided up.

Goatman264- Is that a small twist on a good Life of Bryan quote?

:-)