Have they got public sympathy?

RideOnTime

Striking for 4 days around bonfire night.

morstar

RideOnTime wrote:

Striking for 4 days around bonfire night.

Not really. I often read more into the timing of strikes than the issue itself.
Choosing one of the busiest times of year clearly has most leverage but it must pose ethical questions.
Other examples are when strikes make very long weekends off. You can't help but feel the motivation is often a little awry.
Trouble is we could do with stronger unions but the leaders are often just a variation of power hungry politicians.

arran77

You can't blame them can you, it gets them lots of publicity and that's what they need.

I do actually support them in their cause here as it has a lot to do with public safety and the safety of fire fighters because having to work older to get your pension in a physically demanding job is surely putting lives at risk. This does raise the question though why they chose this weekend if the basis of the strike is safety :?

To be truthful I think it's a combination of the fire fighters being concerned about safety, theirs and the public, but also understandably not wanting to loose out on what is a very generous pension if they are unable to continue working to the age the fire service want them to.

mr_goo

I do support their cause over the retirement issue. I for one would not like to think of having to rely on a 60 year old firefighter rescuing me from a burning house. It is a job for young men and women. Years ago older firefighters that wished to stay in the service used to be able to take up administrative, control centre and other desk bound roles. However successive governments have reduced this area of the service, and for some there will be little option other than to leave or stay on the front line (as it were).

ben@31

The difference between them and my employer is... My employer is a bunch of spineless "yes" men.

Therefore when the govt want to make cuts, I get absolutely ******* shafted. My employer gets an OBE then only complain when they safely retire.

For the past ? years I've had between 0 and 1% payrise. When you take inflation and cost of living into account, I've had a significant financial drop. Then there has been redundancies, a forced change in the pension scheme that I signed for, significant reduction in equipment, closure of sites, loss of expenses and welfare (to the point where people were out of pocket when going on a work related course ).

So yes I have sympathy with them and I admire them standing upto the govt and say " No, we've had enough".

morstar

Playing devils advocate here...
If they want to continue to retire from active service at a younger age, fair enough, but should they be entitled to a full pension with many potential working years still ahead?
I know what arguments will come back my way but armed forces are restricted to 23 years service if I recall correctly.

awallace

A firefighter recently told me the issue isn't that at 60 you cant do the job like 34 year olds due to strength, but as you age you're heart doesn't cope as well as when you are younger, and when in buildings at 800c you clearly get a little hot, increasing heart rate, creating more stress, creating heat and the cycle continues. So when the firefighter collapses, not only do the public suffer colleagues rescuing him do too. This was evidenced by doctors and has been explained to the Government.

Anyone criticising public sector pensions need to remember the large sums paid in for years by the employee and often the type of work they are doing,

taff..

morstar wrote:

Playing devils advocate here...
If they want to continue to retire from active service at a younger age, fair enough, but should they be entitled to a full pension with many potential working years still ahead?
I know what arguments will come back my way but armed forces are restricted to 23 years service if I recall correctly.

your memory is fading with age


a standard contract (for soldiers, seamen and airmen, the officer cadre is different) used to be 22 years, that changed a few years ago to 18 years or to a certain age.

many sailors are being offered extensions to their 22 years of 2/5/10 years or to the age 55. it's worth stating that the Armed forces pension has changed as well and is now an average earnings pension.

mamba80

...at the end of the day, when I ring 999 because my house is on fire, my kids are trapped upstairs and the equivalent of Dads Army turns up, im not going to be happy.

Its easy for Politicians who have benefited from a debt free uni education to introduce fees or a Government/MPs to raise retirement age when he/she will get a fantastic pension for life, in a job that if anything favours age! no real cuts there.

ben@31

All this while MP's give themselves a payrise from £67,000 to £74,000.

"We're all in this together " :lol all the way to the bank:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aUTZ0kinjaI



.

bdu98252

If you really want to get to the bottom of this then you need to look at percentage increases as the problem. As I once told my boss a a young graduate engineer when he announced that we should all be happy with a 3% increase, 3% of not a lot is not much. 3% of a lot is a lot more.

Bosses love percentages because it year on year increases the gap between them and those they manage. The bigger issue regarding pensions is whilst I agree that having fire fighters working longer is probably not good for the service neither is paying for their pensions as if they worked to the average pension age even though they have not. Maybe fire fighting like other careers needs to be viewed as a young persons career with the individual changing to something else at a suitable point in later life.

The unfortunate reality of life in a modern well paid society with a population demanding increasing living standards whilst living for increasing durations is that we may all have to work at an age when others have retired. The same argument applies to the many brickies or plasterers. The only difference is they don't have a union so the smart ones work hard and save for their retirement as bricks and plaster are pretty heavy when you are 60. The less successful ones have a terrible retirement on the state pension and in poverty.

Pross

ben@31 wrote:

All this while MP's give themselves a payrise from £67,000 to £74,000.

"We're all in this together " :lol all the way to the bank:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aUTZ0kinjaI



.

Um, they don't 'give themselves' a payrise. An independent commission decides their payrise. It was brought in to stop people moaning at MPs agreeing their own payrises. If I recall correctly they don't even get to vote on whether to accept the decision so they can't even do anything about it!

cougie

Can we have an independent commission to decide our payrise too then please ? I dont see why MP's should get such good increases - have they been more productive ? Have they hit targets ?

ben@31

Pross wrote:

Um, they don't 'give themselves' a payrise. An independent commission decides their payrise. It was brought in to stop people moaning at MPs agreeing their own payrises. If I recall correctly they don't even get to vote on whether to accept the decision so they can't even do anything about it!

Is that the same definition of ""independent"" as the Armed Forces ""independent"" pay review chairman who got sacked by David Cameron after he recommended a payrise to the troops?

Are the politicians going to turn down their 11% payrise then ?????

They could always give it to charity.

Pross

ben@31 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Um, they don't 'give themselves' a payrise. An independent commission decides their payrise. It was brought in to stop people moaning at MPs agreeing their own payrises. If I recall correctly they don't even get to vote on whether to accept the decision so they can't even do anything about it!

Is that the same definition of ""independent"" as the Armed Forces ""independent"" pay review chairman who got sacked by David Cameron after he recommended a payrise to the troops?

Are the politicians going to turn down their 11% payrise then ?????

They could always give it to charity.

I understand that several of them have turned it down, yes. It's independent as in independent - it makes recommendations independently of Parliament and via public consultation. Of course, this doesn't sit easily with the easy target of criticising anything politicians do.

http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx

arran77

ben@31 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Um, they don't 'give themselves' a payrise. An independent commission decides their payrise. It was brought in to stop people moaning at MPs agreeing their own payrises. If I recall correctly they don't even get to vote on whether to accept the decision so they can't even do anything about it!

Is that the same definition of ""independent"" as the Armed Forces ""independent"" pay review chairman who got sacked by David Cameron after he recommended a payrise to the troops?

Are the politicians going to turn down their 11% payrise then ?????

They could always give it to charity.

You'd turn down such a pay rise would you if we all bitched about whatever you do for a living

ben@31

Arran... "We're all in this together" remember.

The NHS, Fire service, Ministry of Defence etc etc are all taking a hammering. We save people not banks.

Would I turn down a 11% payrise? I would be happy just to have a payrise inline with inflation thank you.

The FBU action is just not over the pension age. There has been a whole range of degradation... Fire Stations closed down, leading to remaining fire stations covering a much wider area. This causes longer response times. Support staff chopped. Full time firefighters replaced by daytime only staff. Fully equipped fire engines replaced by a small van.

If you let the govt get away with this what is next to be cut? Safety equipment?

It might not matter to you until you or your family is involved in a road accident.

slowmart

In England the average response time to fires in dwellings in 2012-13 was 7.4 minutes, nine seconds longer than in 2011-12 and one and a half seconds longer compared to 2009-10.
• The average response time in other building in 2012-13 was 7.9 minutes. This is three seconds shorter than in 2011-12 and four seconds shorter compared to 2009-10.
• Over the ten years from 2002-03 to 2012-13, response time to both dwelling and other building fires increased by one and a half minutes (25%) on average. Meanwhile the average severity of fires decreased due to implementation of fire safety and prevention policy:
• The number of fire fatalities and non-fatal hospital casualties fell by 35% and 54% respectively over the ten years to 2012-13.
• The average area of damage in dwelling fires declined by 28% between 2002-03 and 2012-13.

I don't see any difference when the firefighters tried to attain the support of the public before and they lost the argument when the renumeration and conditions were measured against HM Forces which the point of the last industrial action were being deployed to Iraq and the Stan

arran77

ben@31 wrote:

Would I turn down a 11% payrise? I would be happy just to have a payrise inline with inflation thank you.

Are you sure you're not a politician 'answering' questions without answering them :P

I'd be happy with a payrise that keeps track with inflation but haven't had that for about 5 years so I hear you on that one :roll:

ben@31

Slowmart... Yes H M Forces are getting a shafting too. The difference is the fire brigades Union speaks out to protect its service. Do you have any other stats for schools closing down, hospitals and police ?

ben@31

arran77 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Would I turn down a 11% payrise? I would be happy just to have a payrise inline with inflation thank you.

Are you sure you're not a politician 'answering' questions without answering them :P

I'd be happy with a payrise that keeps track with inflation but haven't had that for about 5 years so I hear you on that one :roll:

Yes I'd be happy to be awarded less than 11% . I'd be happy just to have a payrise that rises the same % as inflation. So I'm not losing every year.

slowmart

ben@31 wrote:

Slowmart... Yes H M Forces are getting a shafting too. The difference is the fire brigades Union speaks out to protect its service. Do you have any other stats for schools closing down, hospitals and police ?

"protect it's service" or their members interests?


Or would you prefer Mr Scargill's view and have the mines still open?

ben@31

Show us where the FBU has said "it's not protecting the whole service but members only" ?

I'm sure the coal mining communities that were devastated by capitalism putting profit before people, would love the coal mines to remain open. Just ask all the American communities that are now in decline after American companies are relocating their factories to Far-East sweatshops. Was it in the news this week that Detroit has gone from the worlds biggest car producer to bankrupt ?

slowmart

The socialist utopia dream is dead. North Korea and Cuba still cling to the ideal and I'm sure they would value your contribution if you truly believe this is the route for social equality?

I'm not suggesting the capitalist system is a better solution, given the state of first world economies but advocating for a status quo for the tactical resource within the fire service with changing behaviours where technology and prevention have reduced the need for firefighters is not viable.

And getting back to the OP's question, I don't see public opinion getting behind any industrial action. It's an industrial tool which is outdated and the argument isn't sustainable under scrutiny.

rick_chasey

Slowmart wrote:

The socialist utopia dream is dead. North Korea and Cuba still cling to the ideal and I'm sure they would value your contribution if you truly believe this is the route for social equality?

I'm not suggesting the capitalist system is a better solution, given the state of first world economies but advocating for a status quo for the tactical resource within the fire service with changing behaviours where technology and prevention have reduced the need for firefighters is not viable.

And getting back to the OP's question, I don't see public opinion getting behind any industrial action. It's an industrial tool which is outdated and the argument isn't sustainable under scrutiny.

Are you suggesting a privately run fire service as opposed to public?

If not, I don't know how this is particularly relevant for the discussion.

ballysmate

ben@31 wrote:

Show us where the FBU has said "it's not protecting the whole service but members only" ?

I'm sure the coal mining communities that were devastated by capitalism putting profit before people, would love the coal mines to remain open. Just ask all the American communities that are now in decline after American companies are relocating their factories to Far-East sweatshops. Was it in the news this week that Detroit has gone from the worlds biggest car producer to bankrupt ?

How very 'How Green Was My Valley'. Yeah we could have carried on digging coal that no-one wanted out the ground at exorbitant cost.
As regards the jobs being relocated to the far east, I am sure that you and everyone else would happily shun cheaper imported goods in favour of more expensive home produced items to keep factories open. Yeah, right! :roll:

slowmart

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

The socialist utopia dream is dead. North Korea and Cuba still cling to the ideal and I'm sure they would value your contribution if you truly believe this is the route for social equality?

I'm not suggesting the capitalist system is a better solution, given the state of first world economies but advocating for a status quo for the tactical resource within the fire service with changing behaviours where technology and prevention have reduced the need for firefighters is not viable.

And getting back to the OP's question, I don't see public opinion getting behind any industrial action. It's an industrial tool which is outdated and the argument isn't sustainable under scrutiny.

Are you suggesting a privately run fire service as opposed to public?

If not, I don't know how this is particularly relevant for the discussion.

Take it in the context it was made, in reference to Ben's previous post regarding coal miners and offshoring the manufacture of goods and services and I don't see the stretch your making to a privately run fire service?

My first post indicates that fires and fire related fatalies have dropped dramatically over the last 10 years which in part is due to better prevention measures. So why not re model a resource based on defunct models?

Yes, that is at the cost of jobs but surely a more effective and efficient service is a better outcome when paid for by the taxed society the service serves?

ben@31

Slowmart wrote:

The socialist utopia dream is dead. North Korea and Cuba still cling to the ideal and I'm sure they would value your contribution if you truly believe this is the route for social equality?

I'm not suggesting the capitalist system is a better solution, given the state of first world economies but advocating for a status quo for the tactical resource within the fire service with changing behaviours where technology and prevention have reduced the need for firefighters is not viable.

And getting back to the OP's question, I don't see public opinion getting behind any industrial action. It's an industrial tool which is outdated and the argument isn't sustainable under scrutiny.

How about in Norway? Critics of socialism never mention Norway :-)

How about our NHS? Free healthcare for all no matter how serious your condition. Or would you turf hospital patients out on the streets still in their hospital gowns once you find out they don't have a credit card? Just like the USA actually does, where some people profit from other people's misfortune.

How about France?
Free healthcare, 3 months sick leave with pay, you can call a Doctor to your house within an hour (in a country where you can get a plumber in less than an hour, the same should be true for a Doctor), free daycare for their children, free college education, minimum of 5 weeks vacation a year, extra vacation for moving home or honeymoon, they only work a 35 hour week, part time workers have the same rights, government issued nannies to help new mothers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbw9LzMhdAc


At least the FBU's action has publicised their cause. Enough for even a forum on cycling to discuss it.

ben@31

Ballysmate wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Show us where the FBU has said "it's not protecting the whole service but members only" ?

I'm sure the coal mining communities that were devastated by capitalism putting profit before people, would love the coal mines to remain open. Just ask all the American communities that are now in decline after American companies are relocating their factories to Far-East sweatshops. Was it in the news this week that Detroit has gone from the worlds biggest car producer to bankrupt ?

How very 'How Green Was My Valley'. Yeah we could have carried on digging coal that no-one wanted out the ground at exorbitant cost.
As regards the jobs being relocated to the far east, I am sure that you and everyone else would happily shun cheaper imported goods in favour of more expensive home produced items to keep factories open. Yeah, right! :roll:

Is most of our elecricity still produced from fossil fuel power stations such as coal?

All the closures at home are not just about reducing cost. It's about maximising profit for the privatised shareholders. Im sure you could keep our factories open if shareholder profit was not the number 1 priority. When £3000 bikes are made in China or Taiwan, the worker on the shop floor is only seeing a fraction of that while how many billions is the owners of Trek or Specialized making per year? Maybe if the owners of Trek or Specialized were prepared to make a million a year rather than a billion, we still could have factories over here in the west.

slowmart

ben@31 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

The socialist utopia dream is dead. North Korea and Cuba still cling to the ideal and I'm sure they would value your contribution if you truly believe this is the route for social equality?

I'm not suggesting the capitalist system is a better solution, given the state of first world economies but advocating for a status quo for the tactical resource within the fire service with changing behaviours where technology and prevention have reduced the need for firefighters is not viable.

And getting back to the OP's question, I don't see public opinion getting behind any industrial action. It's an industrial tool which is outdated and the argument isn't sustainable under scrutiny.

How about in Norway? Critics of socialism never mention Norway :-)

How about our NHS? Free healthcare for all no matter how serious your condition. Or would you turf hospital patients out on the streets still in their hospital gowns once you find out they don't have a credit card? Just like the USA actually does, where some people profit from other people's misfortune. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=

At least the FBU's action has publicised their cause. Enough for even a forum on cycling to discuss it.

All the FBU have highlighted is their antiquated view of industrial relations and working practices of a service which is in dire need of modernisation.

ben@31

Slowmart wrote:

All the FBU have highlighted is their antiquated view of industrial relations and working practices of a service which is in dire need of modernisation.

Is there any other trade union that has such an influence against govt cutbacks as the FBU?

How is the fire service in dire need of modernisation? Is you definition of "modernisation"... putting accountants first before safety and human life? Run a public service like a privatised business?