|  | Add your comment The Fire Brigades' Union is calling for a 40% pay rise and have rejected the 4% they have been offered. As the army and their Green Goddesses are mobilised, fears are growing in Beds, Herts and Bucks that emergency cover may not be sufficient. Should this action be allowed? Do they deserve 40 per cent? What's the answer? Have your say here. Read more about this story
See more comments | che, stevenage | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | In response to you saying i should get another job well i do actually enjoy my job it gives me a personal pride and satisfaction that i have made a positive difference to peoples lives something that i am not ashamed to admit or should be used as a reason to dismiss my skills and appropriate pay for them. Funnily enough my previous job was more dangerous than firefighting not in respect of danger of the job but in the way health and safety is brushed aside and only paid lip service to (even by me). It was also higher paid with similar hours and had greater than four weeks holiday the only downside to the job was that it was a 'meanial job' and everyday people would speak and look at you as if you were some kind of scumbag. I was only unemployed once and went out and got myself a job within a week i didnt mope about scrounging off the state for years because im not interested in working as some are. In fact despite the long hours i actually gave up my own time and chances of even better paid overtime so that i could 'volunteer' to the well being of my country something being a firefighter actually bars me from legally continuing. My wife and i come from humble beginnings and have achieved everything in life by our own hard work and that includes our careers. If i worked in the real world i would be on a damn sight more than £21500 not because i have any qualifications to write home about but because i am prepared to work hard and find solutions to problems that may present themselves. I am not controlled by a desire to earn more money otherwise i would have stayed in the job i did before or joined the police a far easier organisation to get in and oddly higher paid with better and more allowances for a job with similar skill levels. My wife works a reduced week so she can see her son and i as i have said before get to see him more than the average dad, dont blame me for for taking offence to your claim i get far too much time with my family after all it was tony blair and his government that invented 'family friendly' public services so excuse me if i take personal offence to your inferences of being lazy and overpaid they are simply not true. I am not a bad person, do not treat me as one just because i feel that i am undervalued for the skills i have and am prepared to act to change that. |
| che, stevenage | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | I do not want to see the service I/we provide destroyed by a desire to save cost rather than to make it a better service - after all to do that this would require investment as the 4 year £1.5 million shelved Pathfinder report suggests.
I am not an FBU rep I am a concerned firefighter - and member of the tax paying public. With regard to wholetime firefighters being able to do retained in their time off well as it happens that is actually permitted and is carried out by at least a third of my station collegues - and these Wholetime-retained staff are incidently all on strike. However as the union disagrees with it as a principle and any union has rules they are therefore not able to be members of the union, however they do believe that their skills deserve an appropriate salary and that they believe is substantially more than has been offered. You explain about the following of the workforce ie that during the day 555,000 people occupy the city and then at night they all go home leaving 5000 in this area. I'm sure you would agree that people should come first in any priority however property must still be a high priority and protected,for instance the bishopsgate bomb cost the country and economy both locally and nationally billions of pounds - large fires would and do cost companies millions and also costs jobs because many firms downsize or even close as a result of a major fire so a reasonable provision is nessacery for that purpose and interestingly enough current fire standards are based on property risks not people so in those terms alone the current allocation of resources is sufficient. What the scenario should be is actually increasing staff avalible at night in areas such as Hertfordshire because counties such as these are where the people go at night (that is why i cannot afford a house here) however this subject is not broached by Bain because it would actually cost more however it was achieved.
It is a fact that direct exposure to smoke will kill you in three minutes and we will arrive at your door within five minutes now this time anonamoly needs to be tackled because as you know people still die in fires. People are often not in the same room as the seat of the fire so the period between ignition and first becoming effected by smoke adds vital minutes to the equation. There are two avenues open to you to decrease fire deaths the first is build more fire stations so that you can respond in three minutes or ensure that everyone has a method of alert to a fire within their home ie smoke detectors. Well the second option is more economically viable and is being carried out in community fire safety programs - however the government are not that bothered about it otherwise they would have included domestic hardwired smoke detectors and domestic sprinklers in the latest building regulation laws. Unfortunately that was removed under pressure from business I have also noticed that we will not be trained to Paramedic standards as said previously by Bain because this will cost way too much and require funnily enough proper Paramedic training, but we will be trained to higher medical standards to deal with incidents we may face - is that along the lines of Basic Trauma and Life Support courses? Ones that we already do? Ones where we use resusitators and defibs that we already carry on fire appliances? The FBU do allow mixed crewing where it is viable - that means when it doesnt compromise the response of the appliance, for instance they and I quite reasonably would not agree that the following scenario was applicable:- 3 wholetime firefighters on duty at a station a call comes in and they have to wait for the 4th member of the crew to arrive because he/she is retained (and therefore on a 4 minute response time) thus delaying the turnout. However a system already exists at stations that have day crewing where both retained and wholetime members ride the same appliances with the FBU backing! So elitism and made up claims that it costs lives because it doesnt happen are quite honestly stupid in there thinking and simply untrue. The FBU did actually try to have meaningful dialogue with the employers for over 6 months however the employers ONLY responded on the day that the ballot result was announced so actually the union did try and resolve this 'from within' and even almost had a deal signed to end the dispute that was binding AND meant any and every issue brought up for negotiation would have been dealt with - the only reason it was rejected by government was because the union would have actually been able to bring issues that potentially save lives and quite probably would of required investment to the table such as funding for Road Traffic Accidents (currently paid for solely by the locally county taxpayers! Or investment in Community Fire Safety Programs or even provision of womens toilets on fire stations!. The full text of the bain report is on a union sponsored website and can be found by using the link to the pay campaign website. oh and "I finally understand that Nigel of Luton is not in favour of reducing the night shift." but is in favour of Mr Bains idea of reducing the level of cover of the night shift! As mr Blair says "dont belive everything you read in the paper!" |
| Nigel, Luton | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | A final comment: The Inland Revenue also considers a "Second job" to be different to "Undisclosed earnings." |
| Nigel, Luton | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | Why has no firefighter criticised specific items in the Bain Review? Could it be that the FBU website has a link entitled "Full text of Bain report" which leads to a document only 10 pages long? If you are looking for the full document (which is 175 pages long), you can find it in the Retained Firefighters Union website. I've only got about half way through it so far, but it seems a well-presented document, especially considering the short time scale in which it has been produced. So far, I can fault it on only two issues. 1 - the recommended pay rise matches Prescott's figures and I don't know which came first. 2 - it brands the fire service as institutionally racist, though given current norms of political correctness, was probably a mandate of it's inauguration. I may have further disageements as I read further, but so far, many of my previous comments have been included. The review criticises the FBU for its obstructions in its production and for obstructing earlier trials of changed working practices, but does give credit to the FBU for some aspects of working procedure. It gives reasons for its decisions, some of which do appear to have a political slant, but many of the concepts seem valid. Firefighters talk of closing stations at night, but the review explains this a means of following the commuting workforce. During office hours, an extra 500,000 people enter the City of London but go back to the suburbs in the evening. Where is the logic in maintaining a night-time service to cover 555,000 people when only 5,000 people are resident? The Bain review does not necessarily propose redundancies - it suggests that the firefightersare moved out at night-time to cover the areas where the commuters are living. All of the staffing levels are decided by the local Fire Authority, considering day and night population levels, rather than by a single organisation which is ignorant of local requirements. This sounds like sheer common sense. There is also talk of breaking down some of the FBU's rules, but only in the respect that it gives the individual firefighter a right to choose for himself (excuse gender). What are the Wholetime firefighters? Sheep? The only job that the FBU say that a firefighter can't do outside the service is that of a Retained firefighter. The FBU also don't allow Wholetime and Retained firefighters to crew the same vehicle. Where is the logic in this when lives may be at risk? Do FBU members consider themselves elitist? And to the extent that lives are lost? I'm sorry, but my conscience wouldn't allow me to remain a member of a union like that. Purely out of principle, I would walk proudly through the picket lines (or to a Green Goddess) and make a claim for any increase from WITHIN the station to signify my isolation from a disreputable organisation. |
| Bill Stevenson, Stevenage | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | Can anybody explain to me why the fire service needs to modernise? In what way is it inefficient? It's not an organisation designed to make a profit, it is there to save lives and property, which it does with 96% efficiency (government figures not mine). I am extremely suspicious of the independence of the Bain report as it echoes exactly what the government has wanted all along: Job cuts and station closures. The majority of people complain about how long it took for the Police to attend a crime, or how long it took for an ambulance to respond to a heart attack victim. The same is now about to happen to the Fire Service. The Government has it's own agenda which it will force through regardless. The Bain review is just a vehicle to enable them to do it. Each successive Government has decimated the public services under the guise of "modernisation". I have seen similar terms used in the private sector, "downsizing" is my favourite, they both mean the same thing, job losses. Our Firefighters, Police Officers, Paramedics and Nurses are our protectors and saviors. I look at them as an insurance policy. And like all insurance policies I hope I never have need to use it, but I very glad I have it. |
| Nigel, Luton | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | One of my first comments on this forum related to a firefighter knocking the Armed Services, saying that they had just attended a fire that the Army couldn't have coped with, then went on to say that the building (Luton Methodist Hall) was 100% destroyed. It seems Che attended the same school. His defence of full-time staffing of fire stations at night was that crews could get to a fire within 5 minutes. Then he went on to say that people died of smoke inhalation within 3 minutes. I could be sarcastic and suggest that that there seems little point in dialling 999. Instead, I'll just advise the firefighters to be more careful when putting two sentences in one paragraph. Some more advice for firefighters - put some bricks or other fire-resistant material under your braziers. Borehamwood Fire Station has a nice patch of destroyed asphalt outside where somebody (or perhaps 2 or 4 watches) didn't consider the hazards of fire during the first 2-day strike. Will the firefighters offer the cost of repair? |
| Nigel, Luton | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | Che: Yet again you have not read correctly what I have written. With regard to Wholetime firefighters doing Retained duties my words were, "the ideal situation would be if Wholetime firefighters could also undertake Retained duties during their off-duty periods. Look up "could" in the dictionary. It infers "be permitted to," not "obliged." The Retained service is staffed by volunteers (note volunteers begins with a small "v," not to be confused with Volunteers, which begins with a big "V," and is another branch of the Fire Service). If you don't think you get paid enough, why don't you quit Wholetime (there are plenty of people eager to take your place), get a 9-5 job (where you think you'll get £30k) and, because you care about the safety of the community, enrol at a Retained Station (there are lots of vacancies and I'm sure they would be keen to take you on). Or do you have the fear that you will only get £17k (or perhaps look forward to a Giro), your wife will have to give up her apparently highly paid job to look after the kids, you will only get four weeks holiday, no opportunity to enhance your income and get restless weekends because of your Retained commitment? My disparaging comments notwithstanding, I don't think you're stupid. |
| Nigel, Luton | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | Che: If you want me to use correct terms, I'm willing to waste time once (though you have much more available). The Retained firefighters' income deriving from their Fire Service duties includes, but is not necessarily limited to: Annual Retaining Fee, Turn-out Fee, Pre-arranged Attendance Fee, Extra Payment for Remaining on duty, Attendance Fee, Drill Attendance Fee and Long Service Bounty. Not all of these are wages, not all are fees. The term "allowances" saves time, space and, if you are printing this forum, trees. Are you trying to avoid the main issue? |
| Nigel, Luton | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | Che: You must be an FBU rep, READ ALL THE WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN, NOT JUST A SELECTIVE FEW. THE INCLUSION OF THE WORD "NOT" COMPLETELY CHANGES THE MEANING OF A SENTENCE. I reiterate, yet again, I am NOT NOT NOT (has it sunk in?) in favour of reducing the staffing of the night shift. Next time you write, include the phrase, "I finally understand that Nigel of Luton is not in favour of reducing the night shift." Thank you. |
more comments »
|
