Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[albitz]

One of the reasons they are getting so upset about the change in shift patterns, might be the fact that many of them live a long way from London. I can only assume that the pay/terms/conditions etc. make it worth their while to get on their bikesan Easyjet flight from.......
Spain (1)
Denmark (1)
Republic of Ireland (6)
Northern Ireland (3)
Portsmouth (50)
Bournemouth (37)
Swansea (11)
Cardiff (6)
Newcastle (5)
liverpool (4)
Dumfries (1)
Falkirk (1)
etc. etc,

[Richie London]

one of my friends only became a fireman so he could do his knowledge and get his green badge.packed in the firebrigade and hes now a london taxi driver.i know night workers on the underground who have day jobs.. and they dont mind the odd strike now and then

[tunnie]

I can understand why, they get an extra weighting for London sallary.

I commuted from Northamptonshire to London for years, its easily do-able, maybe these shift hours makes them commute in rush hour  :-/

I think they are reducing hours of weekday shifts but increasing weekend ones.

[Varche]

Something wrong here.

Last time I visited London I thought that everything was ludicrously expensive.

Is it a problem with accommodation costs. If so we could build prison like complexes(but free to come and go) well away from  London for the unemployed. They could do worthwhile work like the prisoners are going to do. That would free up affordable accommodation for folk like firefighters. Win win

[albitz]

The change in shifts will affect those who fly in, do a few shifts and then go home for a week etc.
It will also affect the reported 33% of them who have second jobs, ranging from undertakers/taxi drivers to accountants/ modelling for versace...... they have a nice little gravy train going and someone has just shone a spotlight on it.
None of it really bothers me much tbh. but if the employer wants to change things round a bit to hopefully save the taxpayer some money, then I think they should accept the change.
If they go on strike over the issue I would like to see (ideally) the lot of them sacked.

[BigAl]

If i was in charge i would report every one that strikes to HMRC for tax avoidance 

[albitz]

Something wrong here.

Last time I visited London I thought that everything was ludicrously expensive.

Is it a problem with accommodation costs. If so we could build prison like complexes(but free to come and go) well away from  London for the unemployed. They could do worthwhile work like the prisoners are going to do. That would free up affordable accommodation for folk like firefighters. Win win

A site which would fit that bill quite nicely, will be available in Stratford in about three years time.

[Sixstring]

I dont know much about this, but I have a cousin who has recently left the London Fire Service after a considerable number of years service (in the senior ranks) that has now become an engineer in a completely un-related trade because he was so fed up of the continual changes in conditions, shift patterns, hours, and terms of employment. Why would a man on reasonable money and guaranteed a good pension leave a "safe" log-term job unless somethings were seriously bad??
My cousin is a sensible intelligent man, and thinks hard before he does anything, so to leave must have been a long considered decision for him.

Something must be really wrong in the LFS then, or they wouldn't strike or leave??

Just a observation.................... :-/

[geoffr70]

One of the reasons they are getting so upset about the change in shift patterns, might be the fact that many of them live a long way from London. I can only assume that the pay/terms/conditions etc. make it worth their while to get on their bikesan Easyjet flight from.......
Spain (1)
Denmark (1)
Republic of Ireland (6)
Northern Ireland (3)
Portsmouth (50)
Bournemouth (37)
Swansea (11)
Cardiff (6)
Newcastle (5)
liverpool (4)
Dumfries (1)
Falkirk (1)
etc. etc,

What the hell is wrong with this?
They do their job, get paid their money, and can live wherever they want.

Have you not considered that on their wage they might not be able to afford to live near their place of work, or might not be from london, and might originally be from these places?

Whatever the press say about ffs being paid more than PCs is totally untrue, whether it's any relevance or not.

[geoffr70]

If i was in charge i would report every one that strikes to HMRC for tax avoidance 

That's assuming all the strikers have second jobs, then assuming that the ones that have second jobs, don't declare those earnings, then assuming that the ones that have second jobs haven't been authorised by the brigade to do said second job. Firefighter with authorised 2nd job - brigade tells taxman anyway.

In anycase, tax avoidance is perfectly legal.

And why would you report them in some sort of nasty cynical ploy? Because you believe everything you hear on the news and in the media, without knowing all the facts?

[geoffr70]

The change in shifts will affect those who fly in, do a few shifts and then go home for a week etc.
It will also affect the reported 33% of them who have second jobs, ranging from undertakers/taxi drivers to accountants/ modelling for versace...... they have a nice little gravy train going and someone has just shone a spotlight on it.
None of it really bothers me much tbh. but if the employer wants to change things round a bit to hopefully save the taxpayer some money, then I think they should accept the change.
If they go on strike over the issue I would like to see (ideally) the lot of them sacked.

What a very dismissive and vindictive post! It's not so much of a gravy train when they are risking their lives to save others, or taking on the huge responsibility they now have compared to not so long ago.

Having the same number of bods, working the same number of hours, isn't going to save money. Changing the length of shifts, isn't going to save money. Why don't you whinge about MPs having second jobs or anyone else for that matter. Everyone is only doing the best they can for themselves and their future.

[Banjax]

totally agree with Geoffr70, there seems to be massive media manipulation to paint anyone on strike as the bad guys, as I understand it, the main point of the threatened strike is to make management withdraw its threat of sack for refusal to agree new shift patterns....surely a sensible, cool, calm discussion is better than pointing a gun at someones head and saying "sign it".

Further I've heard a lot of "how will you feel if a kid dies on 5th november" stuff from those against the strike, now I'd ask anyone with that view to ask themselves, with less flexible shift patterns, less cover in London and therefore longer response times what about the deaths caused next week, next month, next year etc by reductions in service? or doesnt that fit the humanitarian argument? I'm surprised the union doesnt highlight this, but then maybe using death to make a point isnt their style  :-?

[albitz]

I dont care if they live on Mars and have 20 other jobs. Dont see that as a problem. What I do see as a problem is the fact that their employer (ultimately us taxpayers) is trying to make the service more efficient, but they (led by their 1970,s style union) are going on strike on bonfire night in order to try to protect what most people believe to be a cosy little number with plenty of perks - ie plenty of time off, plenty of shifts where much of the time is spent sleeping etc..
As for risking their lives etc. I have no doubt that many of them do just that at times, but I am also aware of the recent high profile stories regarding 7/7 when they refused to go into the stations to help until someone could guarantee it was safe to do so. And a police inspector testified that even though he was standing on the lines to prove they werent live, the firemen still refused to proceed to the bombed trains until they had official confirmation of the fact.The extra 30 minutes that took must have seemed like an eternity to the victims awaiting help.
There was also the recent publicity about the case where 2 of them refused to take any action to try to save people from drowning - who were reportedly begging them to save them - because they hadnt had the appropriate training.
Some of them are undoubtedly in the job for the right reasons and will act heroically when the situation calls for it. Others are undoubtedly in the job, for an easy life and the chance to earn decent money for doing nothing much. Just like any other group of employees really.
I believe that the strike is unjustifiable (and may well be partially politically motivated) and if I was in the position to do so, would investigate the option of sacking the strikers.

[albitz]

Management have been trying to reach an agreement with them on this issue since god was a boy, but they wont budge.
I seriously doubt that they are resisting because they know it will provide a worse service than the current system. Much more likely protecting their current position, which management consider to be unsustainable.
Seem to remember reports of nasty intimidation against those who didnt join the strike last time they took action. That in itself, removes sympathy for the cause - if they have a genuine cause, which I seriously doubt.
At the end of the day, management must have the right to manage. If after long negotiations, there is no progress then management should use their judgement and impose the new regime. If the Union think they have a good case, let them have a chat with independent arbitrators imo.

Far too many people who have their wages paid by the taxpayer seem to think that they can always have everything they want, and dont seem to be able to understand that they dont have a licence to print money, They need to join the real world imo. If they worked for a private employer, would they be able to have the terms/ conditions/money they currently have ?
No chance.

[Kevin Wood]

I'm not a firefighter, I don't know any, and I can't comment on whether their current employment conditions are reasonable nor whether the changed conditions they are being asked to accept are reasonable.

What isn't reasonable, IMHO, is an emergency service striking at a time chosen purely to maximise risk to the general public.

Strikes are supposed to be awkward for management, to make their lives difficult and prompt them to think again and, if you are looking for the support of the general public in arranging such action, the impact to the public, and especially their safety, needs to be minimised.

If instead the firefighters follow their slack-jawed union leaders into action that appears to have been designed for maximum media coverage at the expense of the safety of the general public then they deserve no support from the public whatsoever, IMHO. 

Kevin