Selfish barstewards!

ellieb

i dont need to be lectured on how important the fire service is, i understand completely.

yeah

they should stop pissing and whining and be glad they have jobs.

sounds like it :roll:

CraigXXL

Good luck to everyone caught in a fire or trapped after a car accident as I'm sure your chances of living are the same when you have 27 appliances manned instead of the usual 169. Lets hope that the 5th November won't be remembered for any over reason than Guy Fawkes. I hope the striking firemans gains if any are really worth someones life.

Northwind

CraigXXL wrote:

Good luck to everyone caught in a fire or trapped after a car accident as I'm sure your chances of living are the same when you have 27 appliances manned instead of the usual 169. Lets hope that the 5th November won't be remembered for any over reason than Guy Fawkes. I hope the striking firemans gains if any are really worth someones life.

OK, this is the 3rd time I've said it but the firemen aren't out to gain a thing, it's the LFB that are trying to force a change not them. But you keep going with that if you want.

On the other hand, your chances of surviving a car crash or fire if the LFB go ahead with the insane plan of sacking every fireman are going to be far worse- the strikes last for 2 days, the loss of experience and staffing threatened will last for years. And even if the brigade were to fold completely and agree to this change, there'll still be reduced coverage at night which is when most fires and most fire fatalities happen so you're still going to be at greater risk. But again, feel free to ignore all that too.

If the risks of the strike are so great, why aren't the management prepared to negotiate? Why won't they move on the one point which would ensure the strikes are cancelled? Why are they going into "last minute talks" with no intention at all of taking the steps that'll stop the strike?

welshkev

ellieb wrote:

i dont need to be lectured on how important the fire service is, i understand completely.

yeah

they should stop pissing and whining and be glad they have jobs.

sounds like it :roll:

that doesn't actually make any sense!!

i'm not saying that what the fire service is doing with their hours is right, but i was supposed to work until 9pm tonight, but at the 11th hour it's got changed to being in at 6am instead. this happens on quite a regular basis and i don't threaten strike action!!

i have a good friend who's a fireman so i know what they do and how important it is, but like me i'm sure loads of other poeople are struggling with similar things in the private sector, my hours are all over the place and i've had pay cuts the last 2 years!!!! at least they have a regular wage and a secure job, it's more than can be said for a lot of people

Northwind

welshkev wrote:

i'm not saying that what the fire service is doing with their hours is right, but i was supposed to work until 9pm tonight, but at the 11th hour it's got changed to being in at 6am instead. this happens on quite a regular basis and i don't threaten strike action!!

If it's within your contracted hours then that's not the same at all. And if it's not but you choose to tolerate it, that's your decision alone.

ellieb

but i was supposed to work until 9pm tonight, but at the 11th hour it's got changed to being in at 6am instead. this happens on quite a regular basis and i don't threaten strike action!!

Well perhaps you should, and then it might not happen.

welshkev

ellieb wrote:

but i was supposed to work until 9pm tonight, but at the 11th hour it's got changed to being in at 6am instead. this happens on quite a regular basis and i don't threaten strike action!!

Well perhaps you should, and then it might not happen.

again, that makes no sense!! :?,

just re read what you wrote, that does make sense...oops :oops:

Northwind

supersonic wrote:

I got my hours changed all the time - I think to an extent changes like this are inevitable.

I get my hours changed within my contract. But if they tried to change my contracted hours, I wouldn't go for it. Not sure why anyone would if it didn't suit them. Going right back to the very first post, they've signed a contract and all they want to happen is for that contract to be enforced.

welshkev

Northwind wrote:

welshkev wrote:

i'm not saying that what the fire service is doing with their hours is right, but i was supposed to work until 9pm tonight, but at the 11th hour it's got changed to being in at 6am instead. this happens on quite a regular basis and i don't threaten strike action!!

If it's within your contracted hours then that's not the same at all. And if it's not but you choose to tolerate it, that's your decision alone.

it's not within my contracted hours, but it is expected as part of the job and if i didn't do it i'd face the sack. like i said, i'm not saying that what they're doing is right, but there's people in similar or far worse positions.

again, i'm not agreeing that it's right for them to have to sign or face the sack, but things and situations change in all jobs.

i don't want to argue about it as everyone has their own opinions and mine isn't neccessarily the right one

Anonymous

I work beyond my "contracted" hours on an almost permament basis.
Going beyond my normal duties keeps my clients happy, keeps me in work, and is no real hardship.

We shouldn't be paying these pyros to be burning down people's homes ANYWAY

Northwind

welshkev wrote:

it's not within my contracted hours, but it is expected as part of the job and if i didn't do it i'd face the sack.:

Then you could take them apart for wrongful dismissal, assuming you've been with the company for long enough. Obviously I don't know your situation and it's your own call but personally I wouldn't stand for it- the company expects me to stand by my contract to the letter and I them, that's what it's there for. As it happens they're flexible and so am I but if they were to suddenly expect me to work weekends or evenings I'd take great pleasure in destroying them

CraigXXL

Northwind wrote:

OK, this is the 3rd time I've said it but the firemen aren't out to gain a thing, it's the LFB that are trying to force a change not them. But you keep going with that if you want.

On the other hand, your chances of surviving a car crash or fire if the LFB go ahead with the insane plan of sacking every fireman are going to be far worse- the strikes last for 2 days, the loss of experience and staffing threatened will last for years. And even if the brigade were to fold completely and agree to this change, there'll still be reduced coverage at night which is when most fires and most fire fatalities happen so you're still going to be at greater risk. But again, feel free to ignore all that too.

If the risks of the strike are so great, why aren't the management prepared to negotiate? Why won't they move on the one point which would ensure the strikes are cancelled? Why are they going into "last minute talks" with no intention at all of taking the steps that'll stop the strike?

The only people saying less night time coverage is the union, the main aim of the changes is to enable more fire prevention which is done during the day when most people are working. Sacking all fireman will never happen as the union knows and as you have pointed out it leaves the service weak. What it will do is allow a private service in the form of Asset Co to get it's foot in the door and that would be bad long term for the future of the fire service. The problem of the fire service and the union is they can't evolve to provide a better service to the public.

Northwind

CraigXXL wrote:

The only people saying less night time coverage is the union, the main aim of the changes is to enable more fire prevention which is done during the day when most people are working. Sacking all fireman will never happen as the union knows and as you have pointed out it leaves the service weak.

So if it will never happen why won't the LFB negotiate on it? You must be able to see the problem here? It's the cause of the strike, if it's not a serious threat then withdraw it. To do otherwise, well, it's insane surely? You can criticise the union but if the LFB really have forced this point over a threat they have no intention to enforce then that's something else entirely.

Just to quickly recap the key point- the union are on record that if the threat gets taken off the table, the strikes will be cancelled.

As for less night time coverage- it's not just the union, no. There will be less staffing on night shift under these changes, LFB don't deny it (in fact they don't talk about it at all, for some reason...) Just think about it for a second then tell me how they can increase hours in the day shift and not increase overall hours without reducing it in the night shift.

supersonic

Northwind wrote:

welshkev wrote:

i'm not saying that what the fire service is doing with their hours is right, but i was supposed to work until 9pm tonight, but at the 11th hour it's got changed to being in at 6am instead. this happens on quite a regular basis and i don't threaten strike action!!

If it's within your contracted hours then that's not the same at all. And if it's not but you choose to tolerate it, that's your decision alone.

Well one shop changed opening times. I didn't go on strike because of that. If you don't like it, you leave. I guess the union is taking the 'ransom' stance - where will it end? Will they strike over every little thing? Hard to say. But they have drawn the line.

Anonymous

ellieb wrote:

i dont need to be lectured on how important the fire service is, i understand completely.

yeah

they should stop pissing and whining and be glad they have jobs.

sounds like it :roll:

im guessing you're a female as you appear unable to understand the idea of removing your emotions from your opinions.

my mind operates in facts and rarely in opinion, it makes the world simple

the fire service are important and essential and hard working-ish

but this doesnt change the fact that they should be glad they have jobs and expect their role in the public sector to include a few changes in these uncertain times.

just because they are essential, they dont have some right to do as they please and make demands, they should sit down, shut up and get on with whatever job they are lucky enought to end up with OR sign off and get a new job.

simples.

welshkev

sheepsteeth wrote:

ellieb wrote:

i dont need to be lectured on how important the fire service is, i understand completely.

yeah

they should stop pissing and whining and be glad they have jobs.

sounds like it :roll:

im guessing you're a female as you appear unable to understand the idea of removing your emotions from your opinions.

.simples.

you have a way with the ladies mate

CraigXXL

For those that remember the Fire strikes in Liverpool.

Tony McGuirk, the chief fire officer of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service (FRS), that, “we’ve got some bone idle people in the public sector”. Tony McGuirk apologised for the tone of his remarks this morning.

But he did not apologise for what he has achieved on Merseyside, which is the real story. Ten years ago there were 2,140 fires in the Merseyside FRS area and 15 deaths from fires. Last year there 1,300 and 7 respectively.

Ten years ago there were 1,400 fire officers. This year there are 850. This is the perfect example of more for less.

The turning point in Merseyside was a tragic death, in 1999, of a very young child in a fire that the fire service could have seen coming: in the home of a family of smokers, using a chip pan, without a fire alarm, in a highly deprived area.

Up until then, those social issues would have been irrelevant to the fire service. Their job was to get an engine with trained staff to the scene of a fire within minutes. And they did a good job in those terms – for 88 percent of fatalities, a fire crew was there within five minutes.

What they realised was that speed of response wasn’t the answer. Instead, prevention was the key. At that time – although a great deal of emphasis was placed on statutory fire prevention in offices, shops and so on – no fire and rescue service in the country committed any major resource to preventing fires in the home. The leaders of Merseyside FRS resolved to visit every home in Merseyside, and apply a simple points system to grade the risk of individual homes. They would provide basic fire safety advice. And they would fit smoke alarms in every home in the area, all 650,000 of them.

They did this by using existing fire crews, by recruiting new kinds of fire staff (such as “advocates” that took the fire safety message to individual ethnic communities), by increasing the number of part-time officers and by forming new partnerships with local health and social services.

They realised that the traditional shift patterns of fire officers left them under-employed for long periods when they could carrying out fire prevention. So they changed shift patterns and made efficiencies worth tens of £millions according to an Audit Commission evaluation.

The steady improvements in fire numbers and fire deaths were not a strong enough argument to prevent the fire brigade union calling a strike, in 2006, over changes in working arrangements. Of around 1,000 officers at that time, 800 went on strike and 200 stayed at work. Those 200 officers were enough to run the service at full capacity. The strike was defeated in six weeks.

Now think about what they are striking against in London.

ellieb

my mind operates in facts

It's a pity that I'm a bloke then.

muppet

Anonymous

ellieb wrote:

my mind operates in facts

It's a pity that I'm a bloke then.

muppet

how would i know that?

all i know is that you have female pissy whiney opinions and no idea how the world works so i assumed you were a female.

im man enough to admit when im wrong. you are not female by your own admission. you are a cheesewand.

CraigXXL

Northwind wrote:

Just think about it for a second then tell me how they can increase hours in the day shift and not increase overall hours without reducing it in the night shift.

CraigXXL wrote:

The basis of this strike is that the management want to change the current 15 hour night shift and 9 hour day shift to a 13 hour night shift and 11 day shift. They aren't being asked to work more hours over their 4 day shift 4 days off rotation or less pay

15 night hours plus 9 day hours = 24 hours
13 night hours plus 11 day hours = 24 hours

Yes, still 24 hours in a day. Like I have said numerous times before they are wanting to create longer day shifts so they can concentrate on fire prevention and with less fires they won't be as busy on a night either.

supersonic

I guess opinions differ on the matter, I can respect the views of others.

I feel that establishments like this need to evolve, as sticking to the same formula is not always the best way. It may be that the changes will reduce deaths and fires, and lead to a more efficient service. If what Craig says is true, then that is a good blueprint to run on.

Northwind

Craigsxxl, the LFB have already taken similiar steps, every brigade has- the move to prevention over fighting's been a national initiative not a Merseyside thing. I don't know the details of that last strike, but I'm not convinced there's any parallel, that was about job cuts pure and simple from what I can see, this isn't. If the sugestion is that the union's resisting the move to prevention that's just not the case at all, they've already done it and the london area's reaped the benefits of it.

CraigXXL wrote:

15 night hours plus 9 day hours = 24 hours
13 night hours plus 11 day hours = 24 hours

Er, you've just proved the exact opposite of what you claim, it's not about hours in a day, it's about where you put the limited hours of work. You can't increase daytime cover without reducing nighttime cover.

No comeback on the "mass sackings won't happen" issue?

<quick edit for unneccesary sarcasm btw, not called for>

welshkev

CraigXXL wrote:

15 night hours plus 9 day hours = 24 hours
13 night hours plus 11 day hours = 24 hours

You've just proved the exact opposite of what you claim. Congratulations. You say there's no reduction of cover then you admit there is, would you make up your mind?[/quote]

i don't think he has, 13 hours would be a long night in anyone's books and i like my sleep

CraigXXL

Northwind wrote:

Craigsxxl, the LFB have already taken similiar steps, every brigade has- the move to prevention over fighting's been a national initiative not a Merseyside thing. I don't know the details of that last strike, but I'm not convinced there's any parallel, that was about job cuts pure and simple from what I can see, this isn't. I can see you're insinuating that the london firefighters are against this move to prevention but that's just not the case at all, they've already done it and the london area's reaped the benefits of it.

CraigXXL wrote:

15 night hours plus 9 day hours = 24 hours
13 night hours plus 11 day hours = 24 hours

You've just proved the exact opposite of what you claim. Congratulations. You say there's no reduction of cover then you admit there is, would you make up your mind?

No comeback on the "mass sackings won't happen" issue?

No comeback because it's a stupid statement to have been made. Why should I defend it?

I have only proved that no one is loosing any hours only the shift length is changing, still the same numbers required to man a watch but with a day shift able to make more visits which night shifts don't do. It also moves back the handover between shifts and their breifings which can't be avoided but taken out of the more valuable day hours.

I'm not insinuating London firefighters are against prevention but they are against change if it effects them.

IcarusGreen

Just out of interest......

Does anyone else work a night shift?

If you work a night shift, do you expect to get paid for sleeping on the night shift?


I know that when I'm working a night, I fully expect to be awake all night unless it's on a 24 hour duty (even then I'm often awake all night).

Anonymous

I used to work nights on emergency stand by, and it was expected for us to sleep, so we'd be refreshed and focused, should the shit hit the fan.

supersonic

I used to sleep in the day at work too. If hungover in Halfords, I'd nip up to the warehouse for an hours kip hehe.

Anonymous

sleeping whilst you are supposed to be working is the only thing that separates us from the animals!

supersonic

Nah animals lick their balls too. Saying that, I can reach mine in hot weather.

CraigXXL

Do they swell in hot weather or does your back bone go all floppy?