My 2 pence worth

Yes, I think they deserve more pay, but not at the level they are asking as other goverment workers (as such) will jump on the bandwagon and before long the breaks will fail. Despite what the government tells us, things are not that good economically.

I agree it can be a crap job at times, but if you can't deal with that, get another job.

Also, they can do other jobs during their time off to suppliment income.

I know that if they get caught unlucky it can mean death, as the job is no longer just putting out fires, but fire and rescue.

Strike action is not the best method for public safety, and I know the negotiating table hasn't worked, and no, I don't know of a better way to deal with it , but the 8 day strike is going to cause major problems as other people hell bent on causing disruption jump on the aforementioned bandwagon, who need a couple of days off to finish decorating the lounge etc.

I don't want to join a flame war (sorry!!) but this is just my opinion and all I'll post on the subject.

---

by Guffer
they can do other jobs during their time off to suppliment income.

---

I keep hearing this one. Yes, theoretically it's true. Firemen work a four-day-on, four-day-off shift pattern. But these are long shifts (typically 2 10-hour day shifts and 2 14-hour night shifts), bringing the working week pretty close to 48 hours. Why should someone who's working a 48-hour week *have* to spend their time off working in a bar or on a supermarket checkout to make ends meet?

---

by tree
so all this business about 1/3 of fire fighters working is rubbish.

---

1/3 of firefighters are the retained firefighters who are NOT on strike, so they are working. So its not rubbish

I did hear that the FireFighters who were working were the part timers - is this the same as 'retained'? They had one of these part time firefighters on the news during the week when I was up in Coventry (so it could have been the local news there) and he said that the part timers weren't on strike, but there was nowhere near enough of them to maintain the service to the public.

The fire brigade stated before the strike to fire brigade personnel that retained fire fighter would not be allowed to work as it would be unsafe to do so with out the support of the fire brigade. whether or not this happened is a point for debate. I am not sure as I am tempoarily living in France.

A few more thoughts.

Retained firefighters are indeed part-time fighters. It is also true they are not on strike and are continuing to supply their services in many parts of the country (although I understand there are no retained firefighters employed in London, so no cover there). They aren't scabs, the pay deal, as far as I am aware does not cover them and they have their own seperate union. As far as I am aware no firefighter has opposed the retained staff from continuing to work.

When the government comes to the negotiations offering 3% here and 4% there they aren't negotiating. The offers made so far are derisory and fail to deal with the central issue - Firefighters are grossly underpaid. Further, in these situations it's in the interest of employers to stay in as many meetings with the Unions as possible. If you're negotiating your still working. And at the old pay rate. There comes a point where the Union has to say 'if you're not going to offer a negotiable pay offer then we have to go, and strike action has to begin'. I don't know for certain that was the case as I wasn't at those negotiations, but going by the statements made by members of the government this seems a likely scenario. Our government is opposed to paying firefighters a fair pay. And that's a Labour government. How sickening. How revolting.

As for the arguement, go get another job if you don't like it. Firefighting, like teaching and Health work, is not another warehouse or office job - it's a vocation. People don't become firefighters because they like the pay, or because of the career options - they become firefighters because that's what they want to do. And unlike Teaching and Health there are no private enmployers offering better pay and conditions. If you want to be a firefighter then their are no alternatives. And I for one am glad that they love there work enough to fight to make the job liveable. Your average firefighter cannot get a mortgage for anything other than a shoebox in the southeast - what kind of reward is that? And the whole point of striking is to remind your employers just how vital your work is - and we are the employers. Want to know what life would be like if every firefighter quit their job? Wait for the eight day strike to find out.

And the idea of getting second jobs is equally off the mark. Most firefighters are not part timers. Working four on four off is not a part time job. It is tiring, draining, and leaves your body clock in chaos. I work those hours and there is no way I could hold down a second job, and what I do is no way near as demanding as what the firefighters do. And the idea of tired and drained firefighters sounds like a very bad one to me.

The responsibility for this strike is with this and previous governments, and also ours, the electorate. Not just this government, but it's predessors too, have beaten the public sector black and blue. And we, for electing these people time and time again are to blame for that. I thank the firefighters for the sacriface they are making. The question is, will the government do what is right, and negotiate a reasonable offer. And will we, as the governments employers, make sure that they do?

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
But of course MPs don't need to go on strike to secure a pay rise, they just vote themselves one..

---

And just how much did they vote themselves last year ?
Answer: 40% !!!!!!!! Kept it pretty quiet too, I wonder why.

sorry I didn't mean to cause confusion on the part of retained fire fighters, if they are in deed working then they are not scabs (i never intended my words to be interpretted in this manner). they are represented by the only union representing fire fighters the FBU. and their pay deal is different to that of regular full time fire fighters so it is not necessary for them to strike, nothing would be gained by this action. as the dis pute is not theirs i was not implying that they should or should not be on strike just that it was my understanding that the fire brigades health and safety department would not allow them to work.

sorry my bad for not structuring my sentences better.

To keep this brief:

I support the strike.

As for the negotiations, despite what you say, KF not all negotiations are successful and if its not working, what are they supposed to do? Continue talking even though its not making a blind bit of difference? It's possible that people who work in the public sector and/or have had experience of strike action feel different from those who work in industry and have things like "duvet days". It seems to me that most people here seem to support the strike. (yay )

As for the negotiations, I figure it goes something like this (not these words but you get the gist):

Union: Firefighters deserve more pay.

Government: Tough, we aint giving them any.

Union: But they really work hard, pay them more money.

Government: No.

Union: Go on...

Goverment: No.

Union: You have to, the deserve it.

Goverment: No.

etc etc.
I expect the reason they have asked for such a large % increase is that they know the goverenment won't give them what they ask for. If they really want 10% the goverment might offer them 3 or 4, so if they ask for 40% the government might offer them a fraction of that - possibly the initial 10% they wanted.

Just a thought.

I think 40% in one go is taking the mickey but i hate unions striking without negotiating anyway(and before anyone says anything - i work on the Underground and DID'NT strike when RMT did)

8 days to go on strike just puts peoples lives at risk - tho i do agree with the police taking the red engines for the army to use if they do strike

(Edited by Dangermouse 20/11/2002 20:23)

I'm a little interested in what the Army plan to do with the red fire engines when they get them. They haven't been trained on the equipment on them (because the fire brigade have been too busy using them to teach the army)

Also the modern fire engine is a bit of a different beastie to drive than a 40+ year old green goddess.

I wonder what happens when the first army driver piles one through tyhe window of Somerfield, cos he forgot he was driving a modern turbo diesel capable of upto 90 mph & not a 35 mph shed.

---

by Dangermouse
I think 40% in one go is taking the mickey but i hate unions striking without negotiating anyway(and before anyone says anything - i work on the Underground and DID'NT strike when RMT did)

---

The FBU have negotiated, repeatedly; the government didn't do likewise, and continued to offer the same derisory settlement.

Repeated strikes have been called because of the FBU's concern for public safety.

They don't have any other realistic options open to them now.

---

by Byron
(quotes)
The FBU have negotiated, repeatedly; the government didn't do likewise,

---

I guess peoples perception from teh same reprts can be quite different. As i've seen it the FBU have walked out of negotiations while the employers (Not actually the same thing as 'the government' though very heavily tied in)have tried to continue meetings.

The renewed offer is now 16%. I remember Gilchrist saying a couple of weeks back that if they were offered 16% they would not strike - but they are striking tomorrow - coz they want the raise without having to give anything for it. The employers want to change shift patterns so that they can increase coverage when needed and reduce when not - they want the firefighters to have flexible shift patterns. The FBU is resistant to this because it would mean that soem Fire fighters would have to give up their second jobs - and i'm not talking about second jobs that are essential to earn enough to live on - there are the second jobs that mean some of them are 'rolling' in it. There are some very very rich firemen out there thanks to their supplemenary income and they are the ones who are resistant to reform in the fireservice. Them having flexible shifts to teach fire prevention in schools would mean that they couldn't earn their second income. so you could give them the 40% and they still wouldn't reform *shrugs*

---

by Sydney
(quotes)

The renewed offer is now 16%.

---

Well, it now turns out that the new pay offer is 4%

---

by Sydney
(quotes)

coz they want the raise without having to give anything for it. The employers want to change shift patterns so that they can increase coverage when needed and reduce when not -

---

The government are starting to suggest that "modernisation" of the fire service would include taking over some of the ambulance duties. Not just really merely a change in shift patterns.



(Edited by Tycho 22/11/2002 02:31)

---

by Deesire
Union: Firefighters deserve more pay.

Government: Tough, we aint giving them any.

Union: But they really work hard, pay them more money.

Government: No.

Union: Go on...

Goverment: No.

Union: You have to, the deserve it.

Goverment: No.

---

Actualy it's more like:
Union: We want 40%
Government: 4% now with a full pay review
Union: We want 40%
Government: 11% over the next 2 years with a full pay review
Union: We want 40%
Goverment: 16% over the next 2 years with a full pay review
Union: We want 40%
Goverment: Can we try negotiating here? Please?
Union: We want 40%

Well I'm being a bit unfair, I should replace the word union with Andy Gilchrist

---

by Tycho
The government are starting to suggest that "modernisation" of the fire service would include taking over some of the ambulance duties. Not just really merely a change in shift patterns.

---

NO,NO,NO. The government merely wants them to takle on first aid courses, these being exactly the same ones that the police take. To compound this one firefighter said that this first aid course would distract them from their job, correct me if I'm wrong but surely their job is to save lives?

---

by Tycho
I wonder what happens when the first army driver piles one through tyhe window of Somerfield, cos he forgot he was driving a modern turbo diesel capable of upto 90 mph & not a 35 mph shed.

---

What, you mean as opposed to driving a 90mpn scorpian tank through jungle terrain? Somehow I think the military can handle a fire engine on tarmaced roads.

---

by Byron
The FBU have negotiated, repeatedly; the government didn't do likewise

---

I saw Andy Gilchrist on the news last night complaining that he had to fing out about governments offers through the B.B.C. If it's the 'union' negotiating and not the government how come it's the government who can't get through to Andy Gilchrist, to all of those who complain about the government walking away from the negotiating table what else are they supposed to do when the other party doesn't turn up?

(Edited by Havoc 22/11/2002 10:28)

For what it's worth, I'm not sure I could go on strike for the sake of my pay packet, knowing that I might end up with someone's life on my conscience. There was a fireman from Bradford on our local news tonight saying that he'd told his wife and kids not to expect any Christmas presents because the average fireman is losing about £300 a week by striking. That does make me wonder whether eventually they'll have to go back when they can't pay the mortgage and so on- two 8-day strikes will hit their pay packets hard, it's equivalent to half a month's salary.

Interesting that somebody mentioned Arriva Trains there as well- what's happened there is that the conductors have been going out on strike on odd days since September last year. The net result is that Arriva have lost the franchise so have no incentive to settle, as they can just walk away having saved thousands because the conductors are still on their 2000 salaries. The union have no incentive to compromise either, because when the new franchise holder comes in next year, they'll probably impose a new pay structure. Oh, and the union have decided to strike through Christmas week as well, which seems a bit mean-spirited.