Print

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

[Mysteryman]

I wonder what would happen if one of the firefighters houses was ablaze during the strike period?




Oh...just remembered.....the Swansea brigade would deal with it.

[markfree]

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.

The facts of the case are as follows :-
man jumps into frozen lake to rescue dog, man gets into difficulties and passer-by jumps into help but he too gets into difficulties.
Fire crew arrive, senior firemen does quick risk assessment and decides (rightly IMO) not too send his men into the water as probably would be sending them to their certain deaths.
Specialist rescue crew arrive approx 30 mins later but by then too late to save the men.
Tragic story all-round and I guess the moral of the story is don't try and rescue a drowning dog/cat/animal.

I also cannot see the logic in sacking the london firemen as who would do the job then - the management.

[Elite Pete]

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.

The facts of the case are as follows :-
man jumps into frozen lake to rescue dog, man gets into difficulties and passer-by jumps into help but he too gets into difficulties.
Fire crew arrive, senior firemen does quick risk assessment and decides (rightly IMO) not too send his men into the water as probably would be sending them to their certain deaths.
Specialist rescue crew arrive approx 30 mins later but by then too late to save the men.
Tragic story all-round and I guess the moral of the story is don't try and rescue a drowning dog/cat/animal.

I also cannot see the logic in sacking the london firemen as who would do the job then - the management.

Me, i'd love a decent job

[pscocoa]

totally agree wtih Kevin and Albs - striking around bonfire night is out of order - unfortunately the firefighters  just behave like sheep behind their moronic union leaders

[albitz]

Im sure the queue would stretch half way back up the M1.
The problem would be the interim period when the new workforce were being trained up.
I still believe that there should be laws preventing emergency services from taking industrial action. In fact I could see the argument for that applying to all public servants.

[Nickbat]

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".

How about pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "we won't sign it", which is what the FBU is doing.

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  :-?

Where did you get that from? Reductions in service? Less flexible shift patterns?

Try reading the Brigade's position:


What’s wrong with the current start and finish times?
The current start and finish times have been in place since 1979 and the work we do today has changed dramatically. We don’t just respond to fires anymore. Firefighters train for and attend a much wider range of incidents such as flooding, collapsed buildings, chemical incidents etc, and work harder than ever before to prevent fires from happening in the first place.

The current start and finish times also result in a change of shift during both the morning and evening rush hours when fire brigade incident demand is at its highest.

What are the benefits of the proposed changes?
The changes would significantly increase the productive time available during the day shift for essential training and community fire safety work to be arranged. For instance, firefighters now prevent fires by visiting Londoners in their homes, fitting free smoke alarms and offering advice on preventing fires.

The new start and finish times would also mean less disruption to services during a crucially busy period of the day. The current shift change takes place during morning and evening rush hour.

Will firefighters actually be working more hours?
No, the overall number of hours that firefighters currently work each week is not increasing. The balance in hours between the day and night shifts is all that is changing.

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2009_PR1470.asp



Now tell me, BJ, how you can write about "the deaths caused next week, next month, next year etc by reductions in service".

[Kevin Wood]

What are the benefits of the proposed changes?
The changes would significantly increase the productive time available during the day shift for essential training and community fire safety work to be arranged. For instance, firefighters now prevent fires by visiting Londoners in their homes, fitting free smoke alarms and offering advice on preventing fires.

Ahh.. Perhaps we're getting somewhere now?   :-?

Kevin

[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.

The facts of the case are as follows :-
man jumps into frozen lake to rescue dog, man gets into difficulties and passer-by jumps into help but he too gets into difficulties.
Fire crew arrive, senior firemen does quick risk assessment and decides (rightly IMO) not too send his men into the water as probably would be sending them to their certain deaths.
Specialist rescue crew arrive approx 30 mins later but by then too late to save the men.
Tragic story all-round and I guess the moral of the story is don't try and rescue a drowning dog/cat/animal.

I also cannot see the logic in sacking the london firemen as who would do the job then - the management.

Sorry but I dont agree. I would like to think that in their position I would have tried to do something. Throw them a rope, or tie a rope to yourself, the other end being held by your colleagues while you attempt to get to them and help if possible. I dont know how they could stand on the bank listening to the men pleading "please dont let us die" and simply wait 30 minutes for people with the appropriate training and equipment to arrive. It seems inhuman to me tbh.

[MaxV6]

1) 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.
 
2) 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.

my limited understanding of such things leads me to surmise that

1) had they gone in and there been an accident due to live lines, or other safety issues, that they should by protocol, have confirmed before entry,  they would have been liable due to negligence.... both for themselves, and any member of public victims.

2) unless trained to do so, they are not insured to do so, so no death benefits if they risk their lives and lose the gamble....     explain that to a widow and kids faced with the bills for a funeral, and no insurance pay out because they didn't follow procedure.

and i'm told, you better believe that they would have been hung out to dry....    quite apart from the government and insurers being tightwads that like to wriggle out of any liability....    it's also one way of trying to enforce adherence to protocol, to maximise their safety, and that of their "clients"

risk their lives sometimes...

virtually every day..... 

have several friends as part timers, and a few as ex full timers.... 

if you're committed enough to risk your life for others on a daily basis, something has to be pretty out of whack for you to decide to leave.   

and sorry, a bit touchy maybe, but i find it offensive when people marginalise the "risk your life" factor in any service , be it police, fire, ambulance or armed services.

and that's what i feel you're doing.



maybe you didn't mean it that way, i certainly hope so, but that's how it came across
 
what choice do they have really.??   i find the imperious decision making process of their employers equally as demeaning and offensive...  it's not like THEY're the one;s risking a burning building falling on them......   they always seem to put pressure on such people, relying on their commitment and devotion to saving others, to let them get away with rolling them over a barrel...

frankly much the same has traditionally been foisted on nurses, police officers and armed forces personnel.


were i in charge, i'd reduce MP's salaries to the same sort of  levels as firefighters , nurses etc,  after all they're only public servants....     or raise that of the worthier sorts to the same as MP's

and i would cheerfully pay a penny more tax in the pound to fund such a thing.

[Proz]

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.

Why don't you whinge about MPs having second jobs or anyone else for that matter

I agree .... seems everyone has a grudge against the fire service ....  :-/

[Proz]

ie plenty of time off, plenty of shifts where much of the time is spent sleeping etc..


And what about the unsociable hours they work , ie bank holidays or xmas or new year ... nights and weekends etc when almost everyone else is off enjoying themselves 

[albitz]

In reply to Max. Im not saying they should have been compelled or forced to go in, just that from a humanitarian point of view I dont see how they could take the watch and wait approach.
I understand the issues about liability etc. but tbh if this country had adopted that sort of attitude in the 2nd world war, we would all be speaking German now. A bit lass elf n sayftee and a bit more True Brit Grit would be nice to see sometimes.

In reply to Proz. I dont have a grudge against the Fire Service. Much of their work is very worthy of high praise.
I do have a grudge however against moronic lefty Union leaders, and have little time for anyone who is daft enough to be led around by the nose by them.

[Nickbat]

ie plenty of time off, plenty of shifts where much of the time is spent sleeping etc..


And what about the unsociable hours they work , ie bank holidays or xmas or new year ... nights and weekends etc when almost everyone else is off enjoying themselves 

Give me a break!! What about truckers, nurses, doctors, restaurant staff, police, military, breakdown services, bakers, newspaper workers. security staff, airport/airline workers, train drivers, etc. etc?

This is about a small change in shift patterns. You can't be a firefighter without agreeing to shift work, thus the "unsociable" hours they work is a given. You can't bring up that "poor little darlings" argument! 

[albitz]

ie plenty of time off, plenty of shifts where much of the time is spent sleeping etc..


And what about the unsociable hours they work , ie bank holidays or xmas or new year ... nights and weekends etc when almost everyone else is off enjoying themselves 

I will be working Christmas day, boxing day and new years eve this year - the same as I did last year. Most of my working days begin at 5pm and end at 8am the following day. I work 3 out of every 4 weekends.I earn a lot less than a firefighter.Its part of my job and I accepted that when I took the job. I dont plan on going on strike over it. Maybe thats the difference between the public and private sectors.

[MaxV6]

have you considered that the union may be acting in the interests of, and with relevance to the concerns of their members....  ??  rather than leading around by the nose?

not ALL union activity is left wing, activism for the sake of it.....   they by and large exist to protect the rights and interests of their members


as for Nov5th

if you want free publicity.... do something when the press will blow it up.....