---

by In a State of Dan
Because, obviously, you'd be thrilled if the entire fire service just walked out of their jobs. This would effectively be a strike anyway, because you can bet that if that were to happen, it wouldn't be very long before they were being begged to come back with whatever incentives were required.

---

Oh look, a false choice argument, nice way to start.

They are employed to do a job, under the terms of their employment they should do it, if they don't like that then they should not have accepted the job.

Also, unlike many public services, there is no shortage of firefighters -- they have the highest applicant ratio of any public sector job. Replacing firefighters who choose to leave is not as difficult as you might like to imply.

---

Anyway, it seems to me you have a very simplistic view of the world. 1) The conditions now may well not be the same as the ones you signed up for. If you're advocating that in that case people should leave their jobs, see above. 2) Employers will, in general and as long as unemployment exists, give workers the worst pay & conditions they can get away with. Unionism and collective bargaining is feasible because, actually, the workers do have some power, and can prevent their employers from doing this, by various means, and this power is best utilised through unionisation.

---

How on earth can you possibly claim that collective pay bargaining is in any way just? One person's ability to do a job may be very different to anothers. This sort of behaviour assumes that everyone should be on the same salary regardless of how good they are at their job.

---

Which is exactly what they have been doing. The strike action is a last resort.

---

They've rejected a 3-year, above inflation, guaruanteed, pay rise, and are demanding an unfeasable 40%. That isn't negotiation -- negotiation requires a little give & take. Even if they get 40% they're still rejecting the need for the fire service to reform.

---

I'd be fascinated to hear how you'd determine the 'merit' of a firefighter.

---

The same way merit is measured everywhere else -- how well you do your job. The majority of the permanent workforce work in meritocratic jobs, were their performance is measured by their immediate management and their salaries set accordingly, why is it better for salaries to be set nationally at an arbitrary level?

---

Well, maybe you should go and become a firefighter then?

---

And that bizarre conclusion came from where?
I accept that there is an economic downturn and that the sector that I work in is having to cut costs, if my comapny and others weren't reducing salaries and laying some people off then the companies would go bankrupt.

I've managed to plan my few trips out today so I could pass the firestation & the firemen outside 3 times. Purely for selfish reasons

I agree with the stike completely, because it's the only option they've got left open to them. The latest 11 per cent offer over two years is a joke, and is less than the 16 per cent proposed by the same review commision that recomended a 41 per cent rise for MPs. This was blocked, but the MPs of course happily pocketed their 41 per cent.

For the incredible work the firefighters do, their current salery is a disgrace. £30,000 a year is the minimum they deserve. But they were more than willing to negotiate below that, only to be thwarted at every turn. It is everyones right to withdraw their labour, and any blood here is squarely on new Labour's prevaricating hands, not the firefighters'.

The argument that firefighters should give up the job they've trained for year for is a joke: it legitimizes working people getting screwed over by employers. Why should they give up a job they love that requires incredible dedication because they can't get by on the pay? A fair wage for the job is why trade unions were formed in the first place, and it's incredible how quickly some people are willing to disregard hard fought-for rights when the goings gets sticky.

The below is written by a firefighter who posts on another site, and sums up the situation quite brilliantly I think.

---

I have just got home, via the pub, from [name removed] Fire Station, in the [location removed]. I walked out from there as a probationer in 1977, and never thought it would happen again. Now I am "on strike" until Friday evening. We are expecting to be locked out before then.

I agree with most of what has been written here, and accept the contrary views. The 40% was mooted by the Labour Research organisation, and was our starting position. It is an aspiration, to be paid 30k. Nobody thought we could get it in one go. Even so, it would only represent parity with the police, prison officers, etc., so it did not seem impossible. This was last May. Of course, the same LRO recommended a 41% increase to the politicians, and they paid it out to themselves, backdated, pocketed it with a smile and a belch.

Anyway, the employers offered 16% over three years, and the FBU were prepared to put it to the vote. I think it would have been accepted by the majority, although the London & SE Brigades were not happy. In the event, the loathsome FAT B....D Prescott dragged his huge arse into the talks and stopped it. You all know the story of the subsequent strike vote and postponements.

This was because little red riding hood Gilchrist believed that they were negotiating in good faith. Were they b......ks. Please read the annexes to the Bain report. Not the report itself, which is so much waffle. The annexes, with the timetable, that includes the "reform"of the firemans pension scheme and the abolition of the appointment and promotion regulations, the end of the "grey book" - our conditions of service - and the transfer to local level all the standards of fire cover that have been decided nationally since the war. Basically, this means, your local fire station will close. And the pump at the next one will be manned by volunteers. (so much better value than employees!) I am too drunk to make this argument. Read the annexes, they are on the FBU site. You will see, if you do, that the 4% this year, and 7% next year, depends on the FBU dismantling their own livelihood, and "reforming" their pensions. Don't take my word for it. Read the Bain report. We have known the agenda for years, we used to call it "Smash and Grab". Now it has emerged again as an "independent review".

Whoever you vote for, the tories get in. We cannot win, and we know it. We have been led to this position by New Labour, have followed like sheep, and now have to stay the course.

---

(Edited by Byron 14/11/2002 18:18)

---

by Callum
UKP21,000 base salary

---

This is where all the media has been getting it wrong.

It's not 21,000 base pay. It's 21,000 maximum pay for a basic firefighter (I.E. lowset rank) if you want to go higher, you have to get promoted.

It takes a long time to get up to the 21,000.

---

by Teresa
I've managed to plan my few trips out today so I could pass the firestation & the firemen outside 3 times. Purely for selfish reasons

---

LMAO

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Firemen

I agree with the strike.

The point isnt that other work forces dont deserve as much as the fire fighters, it's that they all deserve much better pay, the firefighters are just the ones standing up for their rights.

and T, you must be in heaven

---

by Sydney
and I thought that using offensive language but starring it out like this was against site rules

---

Listen Syd, take your and stick it ... only kidding syd... {ducks to avoid WRATH OF SYD}




{edit - posted edited due to intention of contention}
come on guys stick the nature of the topic please- Pegasus


(Edited by Pegasus 15/11/2002 10:01)

I didnt agree with the Firefighter strike until I heard about MP's 41% payrise. This one was news to me. In that case, I support 'em! Really though I'd rather see Nurses get payrises before firefighters, even though I think they do a great job.

---

by Callum
The majority of the permanent workforce work in meritocratic jobs, were their performance is measured by their immediate management and their salaries set accordingly, why is it better for salaries to be set nationally at an arbitrary level?

---

I have to disagree with you there Callum. I have been responsible for overseeing payroll in several companies and as a general rule I have found that in a situation where a large number of people are doing the same job (warehouse operatives, bar staff, security guards), there is a set rate of pay determined at an organisational level. This goes for huge companies with thousands of staff (eg pub companies) as much as for the company I currently work for, where the MD knows most of the warehouse staff by name. There may be bonuses, but as a general rule, the only way a person can earn more than their colleagues is to be promoted. The only way this differs from the firefighters' situation as I see it is that if a warehouse operative thinks they're underpaid they can go down the road and get a better paid warehouse job with another company. A firefighter doesn't have the option of getting a better paid job with another fire brigade, hence the need for national bargaining.

---

if they don't like that then they should not have accepted the job.

---

It's possible to love the job you do even if you hate the conditions. As you said yourself, you are in a sector where there is a downturn and have had to take a pay cut, which I'm sure you weren't exactly ecstatic about, but I don't get the impression that that's made you want to go and seek a job in a totally different sector. I imagine that a lot of firefighters love their jobs, but hate the fact that they are on salaries that barely keep body and soul together.


(Edited by White Hart 15/11/2002 09:22)

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
Entirely depends on your definition, and the circumstances.

But that's quite a leap from 'protests and direct action' to supporting terrorism, and one which some might take offence at.

---

Thank you Dan, indeed some might take offence at it (if they hadn't heard it all before that is)

I realise my remarks were fairly unconstructive, but the overiding point I was trying to get across is my dissatifaction with too, too many aspects of what can vaguely be dubbed the system and my desire to bring about change for what I believe would be the better. I'm really sorry if the *s offended anyone, I'll have to read up on the site rules to make sure it doesn't happen again.

As for condoning terrorism. No. Never. I am pro-democracy, something you might like to think about Sydney if you can't discern the difference. Terrorism is a word thrown around alot these days, not least by repressive regimes eager to silence their critics. You want to silence someone, you call them a terrorist and they daren't speak up for fear of what will happen if they do. When I talk about direct action I am referring to the occupation of buildings, the peaceful blocking of roads, democratic and legitimate ways of making your voice heard where otherwise it would be ignored. Ours is a democratic movement driven by a revulsion of war and so called 'collateral damage' which is simply murder by another name. We take votes before we take action, you would be welcome to join the movement and your voice would be added to ours across the country. Parliament do not however, have the right to a vote on a possible war. That will be left in the hands of Tony Blair and ultimately he alone. When our elected members of parliaent cannot or will not represent our will to the government, we will take to the streets because we are prepared to uphold the values the western world so hypocritically promotes yet fails to practice.

THIS is what democracy feels like.

Hmmm. Please can we try to stick to the topic on this and *not* start attacking each other. If this topic cannot be discussed without degenerating into veiled insults and effectively name calling becuase you can't convince people that they really should be thinking the same way as you, then this thread will be closed, then there will be serious thought whether we allow this type of thread on the site at all.

It's your call people, use it properly, or lose it.

Another quote from the firefighter I quoted earlier in the thread:

---

My sister is a teacher in a comprehensive in [location removed], and she earns quite a lot more than me, although I am a Station Officer, on (almost) 30k. She does have a stressful and challenging job, though, and gets extra payments for being a head of year and suchlike. She told me supply teachers can get £25 an hour, but perhaps they are not paid from the taxes?. It takes four years to train a qualified firefighter. Basic training of new entrants is seventeen weeks, but it is probably not as tough and demanding as a teacher training college.

We are getting away from the days when Firemen are routinely killed on duty. I have known three colleagues killed during my 26 years service, perhaps that is not enough to justify a living wage. I have seen plenty of horrendous injuries among firemen though, would that satisfy you?.

We have developed new techniques based on experience. Since the Blaenau Fire, where two firefighters were killed, we all do flashover suppression training, in which we learn to control explosive flame propagation by systematically soaking the smoke around us to cool the explosive gasses, and do practical training in flashover simulators so that we learn to recognise the onset of flashover conditions. We re-do the training annually. You should try it.

Similarly, since Gillander Street, three, four years ago, our guide line training is far more detailed and rigorous. There is nothing in carrying a charged branch along a guide line in zero visibility in a burning building that would faze you, my friend, but it did for that poor lad in Leicester last week, and ended their contemptible period of survival. I haven't done it for years, but I have sent my lads to do it scores of times.

And presently we are engaged on the five phases of "new dimension" training, which is to prepare us to deal with global reach terrorism. They still don't do degrees in it, though. Perhaps we could add an OU humanities course to make them worth their pay?.

My friend Danny fell through a glass roof last year, but spoiled it all by landing on a beam and getting away with it. The sub on white watch slipped over on a human liver on the M42 three weeks ago, but it wasn't his, and he wasn't hurt, so it doesn't count. My watch had a ladder rescue from a house fire, a whole family of four snatched from the brink during a right inferno, with only minor burns to the LF's hands. Only made page four of the local rag: "family led to safety". I have only been burned badly once, in 1984, and half buried in debris at the Midland Hotel, 1987. Nothing worthwhile since, though I did need counselling after a failed rescue three years ago. It was all right though, I stopped waking up crying after three months.

Listen mate, you are right. There are forty applicants for every job, and in the 21st century there are no properly paid and funded public services. They will dismantle the fire service like they did the skill centres, and call it modernisation. Those nasty rough scargillite wreckers will be put in their place, and you and new labour can march forward with George Dubya to fresh conquests. What makes any English worker deserve a decent wage anyway? You can always find someone to do it for less.

---

Seen as we are also talking about lives , and work related Deaths and injurys I found this on the BBC

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2195847.stm

As per Byron's last post, which has left me in tears - Yes 40% and more, 40% and more for nurses who are abused, attacked and harangued whilst at work, more money for teachers, more money for ambulance crew and more money for the police.

Less money for people whose job entails 'necessary' all expense paid lunches, golf games and 'working holidays'
whose hardest task is switching their own pc on and telling their PA to get them a coffee, and those 'workers' who get told what motion to vote on so they can get off to their four course lunch with their big business 'associates' on time.

Wow, lots of tension here Now to drop a match all over the petrol you guys have spilled

Not really Personally I'm 100% against the strike. How dare they ransom the lives of civilians for more money, which they don't need to live. Yes it would add more creature comforts, but in no way is it a necessity.

People often associate firemen with heroes. How heroicly they let others die, yeah, lets reward their selfish acts with a pay rise. Don't make me laugh. Not only do they strike, they dare to stop the army using the proper equipment (the fire engines). That's not even selfish, that's evil to extreme.

Personally, I think those firemen who stayed and worked, instead of striking, should get a pay rise of five percent and all the others get nothing. Not a single penny.

Is it me, or did it just get hotter here

Er, Kieron, there have been countless stories of firefighters breaking their own strike to assist when people's lives have been at risk.

And, as far as I know, the striking firefighters have not stopped the army from using their machines. But pointed out that it takes 17 weeks to learn how to properly, and safely, operate a fire engine.

How naive (and offensive) to suggest they are striking for 'creature comforts'. They are struggling, in a lot of cases, to raise a family in expensive areas of the country. I'm sorry, although I am not a firefighter, or related to one, comparing their actions to evilness is highly offensive. I sincerely hope that you are never in the position where you are need of saving from a fire or a car wreck. Perhaps then, you might appreciate a bit more how highly skilled these people are and show the necessary respect.

I am 100% in favour of what they are doing. I know how difficult and upsetting this action has been for them. I know how management, and the government, can treat people like dirt. Carry on the fight, brothers!

Remember: Unity Is Strength

Kieran, I suggest if you wish to contribute to this thread further, I suggest you look into the full facts of the strike, rather than to just post inaccurate scribble that has no other function than to annoy people, into flaming your post.

Look up "Troll" or "Trolling" on an internet terms FAQ, because if you try it again, you could find yourself without an account.

OK, two basic issues, so I'll take pay first.

A fully qualified Firefighter with 15 years of service earns £20694. Wages actually vary from £16941 to £42168, depending on age, experience, qualifications and rank. This is all for full time fire staff. There are part time, or retained, firefighters, but they aren't on strike. It's the full-time staff that are striking.

I can't find anywhere which paygrade is to be increased to £30,000, but if this is a 40% increase then that would roughly correspond to a fully qualified Firefighter's pay with between 5 to 15 years service (£21531).

I also can't find out if the 40% is across the board. I hope not. That top pay grade (£42168) is for a Senior Divisional Officer with 15 years of service. I don't think they need a 40% pay rise.

But clearly the basic wage for a Firefighter does not represent their worth and make reasonable reward for the risks they take for us. And on a comparison level, I'm an unqualified telecoms engineer with 3 years service. My pay exceeds £25k. If I'd taken a job with the Reading Fire Brigade instead I would now be on £18843. Do you really think that is reasonable?

Pay for Firefighters is far too low. It's a miracle that anyone takes the job. £30,000 isn't achievable, but £26,000 should be. An offer of 4% this year and 4% next year is taking the proverbial. The government isn't serious about negotiation as it feels it can emotionally blackmail the workers into putting up with their pathetic and demeaning offers. Which brings me to...

The second issue - Stiking.
Firstly, the fatalities over the last couple of days are within the statistical average for daily fatalities. On the first day, Firefighter and the army turned up in under 10 mins, again well within the norm. One of the incidents on the second day was responded to by the part-time (retained) firefighters, and was not affected by the strike at all. I believe there were four fatalities at that situation. Blaming the deaths on the strike is a predictable tactic from right wing newspapers who care nothing for the lives of the average worker.

Should the Firefighters be allowed to strike? The police and army have a pay system that ensures generous pay increases every year, firefighters have their pay linked to manual workers pay, somthing they had to fight to get by stiking in '77. This is hardly as generous a set-up.

Besides, I would actually argue that it is every human beings right to turn round and say 'enough is enough' and to down tools and strike. It is the only way we can ensure that we have a decent pay and conditions. Without it all pay negotiations are toothless (unless your a trained fighting unit like the army, then you can always threaten a coup...). We rarely need them today because of the victories our predecessors have already earned through strike action. Strike action gave women the vote, it gave us full emancipation. It gave us worker's rights and a welfare state. Without the sacrifices others have made (and striking is a huge sacrifice) we all wouldn't have our nice cushy jobs and our nice TV and our lovely computer with internet connection. In short, most of us don't need to strike because others have already done it for us. It's just a pity that for some this blindness to history makes them opposed to all strikes.

Unfortunately, there are still battles to be won. And when the choice is between one centre-right party or another centre-right party, who both put the CBI before the TUC, where else can the Firefighters turn. The government has actually blocked previous pay offers from the Fire Brigade Employers. They don't want the Firefighters to get a decent pay for fear of a spiraling wage demands from other parts of the public sector. But each pay award has to be addressed on it's own merits. If that makes negotiations with departments with less need for an increase, well, that's the governments job. Making Firefighters suffer to make politicians' lifes easier is just plain bad politics.

I support the FBU's strike, I hope that squeeze the government for every penny they can get. And I am disgusted by most of the Tabloid's (and a few broadsheets) coverage of this matter, even if I expect nothing else. And after the Firefighters are done, I think nurses, teachers and Ambulance staff should do the same.

Then if we can just get a socialist/liberal government elected, then I'll be a much happier camper.

---

by Whistler
as far as I know, the striking firefighters have not stopped the army from using their machines. But pointed out that it takes 17 weeks to learn how to properly, and safely, operate a fire engine.

---

Yes, Geoff Hoon (Defence Secretary) was getting nicely roasted by John Humphries yesterday morning because none of the military personnel had been trained to use modern fire engines. And after all, there has been talk of a strike for months so you'd think someone might have thought it would be a good idea... And I know that I heard on the news today that all of the firefighters have said that although they might be on strike they will not try to prevent the fire engines leaving the stations.

I did a quick reckoning this morning and a firefighter on £21,000p.a. paying the sort of housing costs you have to pay around here (at least £700 per month) would have under £150 a week left for bills, food, clothing, transport, entertainment...not a lot, especially for someone trying to support a family

Yes I support the Firefighters, but it hasn't half played havoc with my journey into work and home.

All because of the Tube Drivers, which is a wole different kettle of fish