Firefighter strikes

[bodminman]

Do you support these strikes?

 

Personally I don't, not one bit!

 

I have a brother-in-law who was a fire fighter and he reitired at 50 (two years ago) after serving for just over 20 years. He lived in a firestation house for about 9 years where he paid next to nothing and so was able to rent his own house out which paid more than his mortgage. After him having his 'lump sum', his monthly pension is just £50 less than my monthly salary and he now continues to work as a freelance fire safety consultant which rakes him in an extra few grand a month too. Whilst he was serving, he used to also run a gardening business which he operated during his '4 off' days. Privilaged position me thinks!!!

 

On the other hand, an old school friend of mine says that there is no reason for firefighters no to be retiring until 60. He thinks that at 55 the frontline firefighters could go into training/community roles. However, he has said that he will also be taking advantage of the early retirement and will likely go and spend a few years in somewhere like Dubai where he could easily earn £70-80k.

 

One of the reasons for the striking is down the the possible increase in the retirement age to bring them more in line with the other emergency services. Quite right too I think!

[glennda]

Could you really expect a 60 year old man/women to have to run into a burning building?

[Steve21]

Honestly I don't support a single department/job/company striking. I know people will disagree, but to me it's blackmail. Give us money (Or XYZ...), or we won't work

 

There are many ways to try to do something without resorting to strikes all the time, which is just affecting the people you're actually working to try to help (whether firefighter/teacher/nurse w/e)

 

The more people who keep striking, the more often it'll happen, and thus the more people that get hurt/losses.

 

Just my two cents, and I know lots of people will rage But meh!

 

Steve

Edited November 4, 2013 by Steve21

[bodminman]

Could you really expect a 60 year old man/women to have to run into a burning building?

 

Nope but there experience in a training capacity or within the community could be invaluable. Also, there's a lot more going on within a fire station than just fire fighting.

[Andrew_C]

I know people will disagree, but to me it's blackmail. Give us money (Or XYZ...), or we won't work

Flip that... Do this dangerous/horrid job for less money, or we give the job to someone who will. Right to strike? I think so!

[pcstru]

Nope but there experience in a training capacity or within the community could be invaluable. Also, there's a lot more going on within a fire station than just fire fighting.

 

Sure there is. But if the job description for a fire fighter requires a physically fit person, then not being physically fit could be grounds for dismissal.

[SpuffMonkey]

If its such a doss job bodminman - why don't you become a fire fighter, instead of moaning?

[sparkeh]

Flip that... Do this dangerous/horrid job for less money, or we give the job to someone who will. Right to strike? I think so!

Too right.

If people are prepared to risk their own lives going into burning buildings to save others' lives they deserve every penny they earn without all this envy about their terms and conditions.

Also, I genuinely believe that with the fire service they only strike when serious safety concerns are raised. Fire fighters care about their jobs and the service and striking is a big deal for them, they don't want to put people at risk unnecessarily.

[glennda]

Nope but there experience in a training capacity or within the community could be invaluable. Also, there's a lot more going on within a fire station than just fire fighting.

 

But what they are trying to say is that they couldn't do that as there isn't enough of those roles available for the extra staff that would be kept on from 55-60.

@Steve21 - I agree with you - but they arn't arguing over pay on this strike. I don't believe in strike action personally (teachers etc) but on this occasion I have to say I believe they are probably correct with part of there argument.

[broc]

Front line firefighters get the same money as reasonably paid network managers, at just over 60 I know what I would rather do. I have a lot of respect for what our emergency services do & if I needed a fireman to rescue my family from a blazing inferno I would be happier with someone who was young & fit rather than a 50-60 year old who is taking pills for high blood pressure due to work related stress!

[featured_spectre]

My mrs uncle is the chief station commander in Bedfordshire, when there is a large fire anywhere in the county (large being a 4 bedroom house or bigger building) then he goes, regardless of the time. He is the last to leave the scene, and he has to assess the health and safety of the fire fighters also. I spent a day with him at his job as he was hosting an open day for people, and literally as the crew sat down for lunch, the alarm rang and they had to go, leaving their food to go cold. Then they had to fill out reports when they were finish and couldn't leave for home until done.

 

Now imagine you being in a role where as soon as your alarm/pager goes off, you have to drop everything and work until the task is done, even if that means going beyond your shift without extra pay. You wouldn't like it. Another instance is this, you chop a car to get a person out of a car, and the person is to the point they're beyond saving, They deal with more death at scene than any other emergency service.

 

I fully support the fire fighter strikes, as they put up with a lot of rubbish from a lot of people and still do their job where many would have packed it in and given up.

[pcstru]

Honestly I don't support a single department/job/company striking. I know people will disagree, but to me it's blackmail. Give us money (Or XYZ...), or we won't work

Generally, people don't get paid when they are on strike. Usually this puts the employer in a very strong position - Strike and you pay your mortgage from savings.

There are many ways to try to do something without resorting to strikes all the time, which is just affecting the people you're actually working to try to help (whether firefighter/teacher/nurse w/e)

No one goes on strike without having gone through some process of negotiation. When people strike, they see it as a last, not first resort. There are relatively few strikes these days.

The more people who keep striking, the more often it'll happen, and thus the more people that get hurt/losses.

 

Just my two cents, and I know lots of people will rage But meh!

Rage - no. What do you think people should be able to do to protest?

[Steve21]

Generally, people don't get paid when they are on strike. Usually this puts the employer in a very strong position - Strike and you pay your mortgage from savings.

 

Aye I agree, but "the majority" of the strikes are normally linked to pay, whether increases/pension etc.

 

No one goes on strike without having gone through some process of negotiation. When people strike, they see it as a last, not first resort. There are relatively few strikes these days.

 

Well I don't know how many there were before, but I mean this year alone it's been Post/Curriers, NHS, Teachers, Firemen, Police, Railways, Oil, all either threatening or actually striking, and that's just those I can think of offhand.

 

 

Rage - no. What do you think people should be able to do to protest?

 

I just think as with all these things there's a time and place to do them, e.g. With firefighters, not the bonfire/fireworks weekend when most things will probably burn in the year.

 

The discussions are still on-going with all of these things, so it's not like it's hit the end of the road yet.

 

Just think as with all of these things, the point is to negotiate on both sides, not just argue, refuse to budge and then stop working (And this relates to all professions, not just firefighters)

 

Steve

[Sdrawkcab]

So, those of you saying you're against strike action, what would you do in a situation where your employer was trying to make a change to your role which would leave you worse off? Just get your head down, tug your forelock and get on with it, like good little automatons?

[Guest Guest]

Could you really expect a 60 year old man/women to have to run into a burning building?

 

But where do you draw the line? Can you expect a scaffolder to still be hanging under the Forth bridge at 60? Which professions involving regular physical activity qualify for early retirement and why do the others not qualify?

 

Personally I think we need more retraining programs for these people. A lot of employers won't give an unqualified 50 year old the time of day due to the training costs...

Edited November 4, 2013 by Guest

[broc]

Just because people are living longer does not mean they are staying 100% fit longer. A significant % of over 50's are now suffering with long-term health problems, some with multiple problems. This may not affect desk-jockeys (like us) or the career pools that politicians are mostly drawn from but it does affect those people who have to carry out hard physical work. If you accept the argument that we as a nation cannot afford for people to retire early because of pension costs then there needs to be suitable work available for people in the 50-70 age range who can no longer do jobs that demand a high level of fitness & stamina. Unfortunately ageism is still rife in the world of work, as the increasing number of unemployed over 50's will testify. UK employers have a very long track record of underinvestment in training, in the past they preferred to 'poach' staff from other companies. This needs to change too.

[Sdrawkcab]

Lets not forget that firemen are not just doing hard physical work, they are doing hard physical work in buildings which are literally on fire.

[bodminman]

If its such a doss job bodminman - why don't you become a fire fighter, instead of moaning?

 

@SpuffMonkey - I am entitled to have my opinion on this or any other subject just like anyone else. Whether it is right or wrong that is still my opinion and that isn't moaning, it's having a point of view about something. After all aren't a majority of the posts on here from people having an opinion about such things or are we all just moaning!?! Also for your info I was a retained fire fighter up until 7 years ago.

 

I never said that the job itself is a 'doss'. In fact I do think that the job of a fire fighter is probably one of the most difficult around. I feel that the retirement age should be raised but whole heartedly also agree that they should not be put on the frontline right up to the retirement age as that just wouldn't be right on a number of levels. However, I do feel that there is more scope for fire fighters to re-invest their skills and experience through things like training, fire safety visits etc as suggested also by my fire fighter friend.

[MatthewL]

I don't think some people realise how much demand on your body a job like this has.

 

You don up in breathing apparatus for the 20-30 minutes (that is the amount of air you have depending how hard you work) you come out drained no matter how fit you can be, it takes its toll on you. Admittedly its a once in a blue moon now that you have a working job with BA etc but you always need to be on your guard for it, I have known firefighters to work till 65 but they are retained (called by pager as and when needed) and they may only go 100 jobs a year, more of them will be car fires or animal rescues and very rarely see a house fire these days compared to those in the built up city areas that may have 2 or 3 fires of note a month.

 

It will all effect FF's one way or another.

[Sdrawkcab]

So, those of you saying you're against strike action, what would you do in a situation where your employer was trying to make a change to your role which would leave you worse off? Just get your head down, tug your forelock and get on with it, like good little automatons?

 

Just quoting this for page 2 since none of the "don't strike" crew actually responded to me.

[bodminman]

. . . . . . . Just get your head down, tug your forelock and get on with it, like good little automatons?.

 

Hi @Sdrawkcab,

 

That is something that all of us working in Education have had to do at some point over the years!

 

It isn't right just to roll over and accept but I too am not a great believer in strike action at all.

[Steve21]

Just quoting this for page 2 since none of the "don't strike" crew actually responded to me.

 

I think you're missing the point that not all strikes are due to things being changed that make you worse off, they're not all about decreasing pay/worse working conditions, a lot are "just not making you better".

 

Prime example is strikes over pay increases. You don't start a job with the assumption I'll quit if I don't get my pay increase every year. Does XYZ company always "deserve" a payrise each year? If they did it would be part of the contract. Sure you may "want, and hope" for a rise each year.

 

And then answer me this, do you think it's fair (or responsible) of people like firefighters to strike over bonfire/fireworks weekend? Would it hurt to delay their strikes another week/fortnight when there is statistically going to be less emergenies that need dealing with? No-one would disagree firefighters etc do a great job, but my original point still stands imo, that trying to bend someone over a barrel isn't the way forward when discussions are still ongoing.

 

As I already said I feel many strikes nowadays are just down to wanting an easy win, and effectively blackmail. Not all of them, and I never said that. I think there's always a time and a place for doing things.

 

Going onto a "non-firefighter" point, I don't get breaks as a support staff yet teachers do, so because I don't strike I'm in the wrong then? Based upon your arguement.

 

Steve

Edited November 5, 2013 by Steve21

[pcstru]

And then answer me this, do you think it's fair (or responsible) of people like firefighters to strike over bonfire/fireworks weekend? Would it hurt to delay their strikes another week/fortnight when there is statistically going to be less emergenies that need dealing with?

Why are there going to be more emergencies? If people choose to host a fireworks party while the firefighters are on strike, that is their lookout. It's not as if putting on a fireworks display isn't a *choice* people have. Nor are Fireworks some kind of inalienable right. Perhaps if people properly assessed the risk, a fire-fighters strike over bonfire night would reduce casualties since sensible people wouldn't bother.

 

There really is no good time for a fire fighters strike. Whenever they do so, they will be accused of abandoning those who need them.

Edited November 5, 2013 by pcstru