Fire Strike - support or no ?
Discussion
Ok - I'll do it - no one else has brought it up.
I'm not a fireman (sorry sgirl) or related to, or know one, or even called for one, but I agree with their claim. As I understand it they asked to not be compared to manual workers some years ago - (i've heard 6 years and 10 years - (either way fair warning if you ask me)) and the govt have ignored them. Now they say enough is enough - a fully qualified fireman gets 22k - they are expected to work shifts, risk their lives, know techie stuff etc etc and get paid the same as some bloke out of collage who reckons he can program 'puter. Not on IMO.
have I got this completely a*se backwards, or no?
Paul
>>> Edited by gopher on Thursday 14th November 22:33
I'm not a fireman (sorry sgirl) or related to, or know one, or even called for one, but I agree with their claim. As I understand it they asked to not be compared to manual workers some years ago - (i've heard 6 years and 10 years - (either way fair warning if you ask me)) and the govt have ignored them. Now they say enough is enough - a fully qualified fireman gets 22k - they are expected to work shifts, risk their lives, know techie stuff etc etc and get paid the same as some bloke out of collage who reckons he can program 'puter. Not on IMO.
have I got this completely a*se backwards, or no?
Paul
>>> Edited by gopher on Thursday 14th November 22:33
A fully qualified Paramedic gets only 22k per year after training.
If the firemen get a pay rise the Paramedics/Ambulancemen will be the next out on strike.
I have a mate who is one and they are on the go all the time during their shifts.
I don't know how many Fireman are busy throughout their shifts.
The Firemen should get a pay rise but the Paramedics I feel are more deserving.IMHO.
Lee
If the firemen get a pay rise the Paramedics/Ambulancemen will be the next out on strike.
I have a mate who is one and they are on the go all the time during their shifts.
I don't know how many Fireman are busy throughout their shifts.
The Firemen should get a pay rise but the Paramedics I feel are more deserving.IMHO.
Lee
Sorry I'm against.
It is not that I don't rate fireman or what they do, but the law of supply and demand is king in my ideal freemarket world. Fireman get 38 people apply for each job come up, unlike teachers or nurses for example, therefore they do not need more pay.
I am sure there are some sensible grievances that need sorting, like pay variable by location for example, but not a 40% pay hike. However, stories of fireman doubling their money as plumbers and such like in their spare time while not declaring any tax on it doesn't help their cause either.
It is not that I don't rate fireman or what they do, but the law of supply and demand is king in my ideal freemarket world. Fireman get 38 people apply for each job come up, unlike teachers or nurses for example, therefore they do not need more pay.
I am sure there are some sensible grievances that need sorting, like pay variable by location for example, but not a 40% pay hike. However, stories of fireman doubling their money as plumbers and such like in their spare time while not declaring any tax on it doesn't help their cause either.
Shouldn't respond to this, but can't help myself.
I wouldn't say that anybody sees firemen and women as manual workers. It is most definitely a highly skilled job. As always, there are more things to consider. The first is pension, which puts the firefighters in a much better position than simply quoting salary suggests (i.e. we get scr*wed in the private sector by comparison) - I have been told to put away 85% of my gross to put myself on a similar footing to my public sector collegues - like that is going to happen.
The second factor is that I believe that there is a misconception about what 'professionals' get paid in the private sector. We employ quite a few kids from college who think that they can program a 'puter - some of them actually can - and most of them get less than £30k (even the ones that haven't seen the inside of a university for some time now), and it isn't that we are mean, salaries with us are market rate + in every case. Factor into this that job security is much less in the private sector than in public services.
The last point is I'm afraid a bit capitalist, but it is non the less slightly relevant. There are more people out there with the latent ability to be a firefighter than rise to the top of industry, become an investment banker or become a project supervisor in a major engineering project. Harsh but fair.
Like everybody else in the country, I would like to get paid more. I am also an engineer, so in some ways I am in the same situation as the firefighters, with most of my peers persuing other careers that pay substantially more (like add a f
g zero!). I am aware however, that to increase my income by 40%, I have to charge my clients 40% more - and they will laugh at that suggestion. Fine, I chose a career that I knew that I would find rewarding, and I would allow me to achieve in other ways than financially. Similarities?
Finally, manual workers get paid around five pounds an hour in the downtrodden North, and that is gross! I think that when the unions start talking take home pay rather than gross, then even they are admitting that they have something to hide.
Do the firefighters do an important job - of course - but they should be valued at a similar level to their peers - police, ambulance crews etc. I believe that they already are there.
I wouldn't say that anybody sees firemen and women as manual workers. It is most definitely a highly skilled job. As always, there are more things to consider. The first is pension, which puts the firefighters in a much better position than simply quoting salary suggests (i.e. we get scr*wed in the private sector by comparison) - I have been told to put away 85% of my gross to put myself on a similar footing to my public sector collegues - like that is going to happen.
The second factor is that I believe that there is a misconception about what 'professionals' get paid in the private sector. We employ quite a few kids from college who think that they can program a 'puter - some of them actually can - and most of them get less than £30k (even the ones that haven't seen the inside of a university for some time now), and it isn't that we are mean, salaries with us are market rate + in every case. Factor into this that job security is much less in the private sector than in public services.
The last point is I'm afraid a bit capitalist, but it is non the less slightly relevant. There are more people out there with the latent ability to be a firefighter than rise to the top of industry, become an investment banker or become a project supervisor in a major engineering project. Harsh but fair.
Like everybody else in the country, I would like to get paid more. I am also an engineer, so in some ways I am in the same situation as the firefighters, with most of my peers persuing other careers that pay substantially more (like add a f
g zero!). I am aware however, that to increase my income by 40%, I have to charge my clients 40% more - and they will laugh at that suggestion. Fine, I chose a career that I knew that I would find rewarding, and I would allow me to achieve in other ways than financially. Similarities? Finally, manual workers get paid around five pounds an hour in the downtrodden North, and that is gross! I think that when the unions start talking take home pay rather than gross, then even they are admitting that they have something to hide.
Do the firefighters do an important job - of course - but they should be valued at a similar level to their peers - police, ambulance crews etc. I believe that they already are there.
I think the fire service shouldn't be allowed to go on strike - its just rediculous in a modern society. Having said that I think they should maybe get some sort of bonus for every job they go out on, so in effect they get paid more - but only when they are working. This 40% pay rise is plain unrealistic though - its obvious all the other public service workers would be out for a similar deal, which the country just cannot afford. The fire brigade union should join the real world!
Sorry, against
No more or less than the army then, who I imagine get similar money for doing a skilled and potentially dangerous job. Ironically they are now risking their lives (and ours) even more by using old clapped out equipment while the militant part timers withhold the equipment owned and paid for by the taxpayers.
On my local news tonight one of the fireman's representatives was asked why the army couldn't use the good gear?
Answer: Because they hadn't been trained and if one of the squadies was injured it may raise a Health & Safety Issue. Really.
Isn't it comforting to know they have the armies welfare at heart even though when they do, eventually, get to the fire it will be a lot worse. Something to ponder as you lay bleeding in a car accident or burning to death in your house because a green godess is conked out somewhere.
Presumably the job was advertised with a salary so if they didn't like the money why didn't they take up plumbing? It may be they have some legitimate grievance with their work practice or pay but 40% is way, waaaaay out of order, as is striking.
>> Edited by bacardi on Friday 15th November 10:19
they are expected to work shifts, risk their lives, know techie stuff etc etc and get paid the same as some bloke out of collage
No more or less than the army then, who I imagine get similar money for doing a skilled and potentially dangerous job. Ironically they are now risking their lives (and ours) even more by using old clapped out equipment while the militant part timers withhold the equipment owned and paid for by the taxpayers.
On my local news tonight one of the fireman's representatives was asked why the army couldn't use the good gear?
Answer: Because they hadn't been trained and if one of the squadies was injured it may raise a Health & Safety Issue. Really.
Isn't it comforting to know they have the armies welfare at heart even though when they do, eventually, get to the fire it will be a lot worse. Something to ponder as you lay bleeding in a car accident or burning to death in your house because a green godess is conked out somewhere.
Presumably the job was advertised with a salary so if they didn't like the money why didn't they take up plumbing? It may be they have some legitimate grievance with their work practice or pay but 40% is way, waaaaay out of order, as is striking.
>> Edited by bacardi on Friday 15th November 10:19
Well in a free market way, I think that they are worth whatever they can persuade the government to pay them. However, at the moment there are a lot of people that want to be firefighters (and lets face it, it is a very secure job, unlike many other jobs out there)
I think that striking for a 40% rise is ridiculous (in fact I fundamentally disagree with striking for pay in a free market - there are fair grounds for strikes, but if you don't like the pay, go & find another place that will pay you better)
Why didn't their union push for more money earlier, when it would have been easier to get a payrise in keeping with what they think they are worth.
To strike for this much of a % pay rise is just obscene when so many people are being made redundant. If enough firemen left such that we were short, then market forces should come into play & we should pay them more (in the same way that we should pay nurses more, cos we ain't got enough)
I think that striking for a 40% rise is ridiculous (in fact I fundamentally disagree with striking for pay in a free market - there are fair grounds for strikes, but if you don't like the pay, go & find another place that will pay you better)
Why didn't their union push for more money earlier, when it would have been easier to get a payrise in keeping with what they think they are worth.
To strike for this much of a % pay rise is just obscene when so many people are being made redundant. If enough firemen left such that we were short, then market forces should come into play & we should pay them more (in the same way that we should pay nurses more, cos we ain't got enough)
They aren't employed by the government, they are employd by the local authorities. The local authorities have refused to pay more, so the union is suggesting that someone completely not to do with the situation stumps up for their raise (i.e. the government).
It's very unfair to criticise the central government over this issue.
It's very unfair to criticise the central government over this issue.
Shove their placards up their arses, are my opinions clear enough ?
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=16830&f=0&h=0&hw=firefighters
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=21914&f=0&h=0&hw=firefighters
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=16830&f=0&h=0&hw=firefighters
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=21914&f=0&h=0&hw=firefighters
Against too.
Check out www.bbc.co.uk/news .... there's a for / against poll there. Currently 2/3 of the voters are against the firemen .....
Check out www.bbc.co.uk/news .... there's a for / against poll there. Currently 2/3 of the voters are against the firemen .....
Not sure on this one.
Firstly I don't thing 22k is enough for the job they do. Given the training, skill and overall risk of their jobs, I don't think it's reflected in their salary. Having said that, I don't think nurses and coppers get enough either; although I think firemen put themselves at greater risk that the others.
40% isn't going to happen - so why not state exactly what they WILL accept - save everyone messing around.
The news reports illustrated some interesting things last night. The army struggled for an hour to free someone form a car. Using the same equipment, the firemen did it in 5 minutes.
Secondly, many firemen broke their own strike to help in cases of accidents and fires - that shows that it's not all about money, but about dedication. More to the point they are honest, hardworking people who want to save lives. This is commendible.
I for one would not want to do their job. Going into a burning building seems absolutely insane to me, so all credit to them. Once again this country continues to undermine it's best resources - it's people.
Give them the rise they DESERVE and lets get back on with things. Bring back Maggie - all is forgiven!
Firstly I don't thing 22k is enough for the job they do. Given the training, skill and overall risk of their jobs, I don't think it's reflected in their salary. Having said that, I don't think nurses and coppers get enough either; although I think firemen put themselves at greater risk that the others.
40% isn't going to happen - so why not state exactly what they WILL accept - save everyone messing around.
The news reports illustrated some interesting things last night. The army struggled for an hour to free someone form a car. Using the same equipment, the firemen did it in 5 minutes.
Secondly, many firemen broke their own strike to help in cases of accidents and fires - that shows that it's not all about money, but about dedication. More to the point they are honest, hardworking people who want to save lives. This is commendible.
I for one would not want to do their job. Going into a burning building seems absolutely insane to me, so all credit to them. Once again this country continues to undermine it's best resources - it's people.
Give them the rise they DESERVE and lets get back on with things. Bring back Maggie - all is forgiven!
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff