Military back-up refused for strike by firefighters [Archive]

LFFC

20th May 2006, 21:38

From The Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2188804,00.html)

For the first time the Government will not sanction emergency cover

A MILLION householders will have almost no protection against fire today after the Government refused for the first time to provide military back-up for a firefighters’ strike.

Fire chiefs said that people’s lives and property would be put at risk when firefighters stop work from 2pm to 10pm over proposals to cut jobs in Hertfordshire. The Fire Brigades’ Union (FBU) said that the situation could escalate as fire authorities implemented the modernisation deal reached in 2003 after a nine-month strike.

Despite attempts to provide cover, Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service said last night that its fleet of 43 engines would be reduced to about three, with back-up from part-time firefighters in some areas. The three engines would be operated by managers, officials and firefighters who were prepared to cross picket lines. The catchment area includes parts of the busy M1, M25 and A1M, and the Buncefield oil depot, the site of a huge fire last December. The FBU has announced two further strikes in the county on May 26 and 31.

Today’s strike will act as a test for further disputes. The Government confirmed that there would be no emergency cover from the Armed Forces. Angela Smith, the Fire and Rescue Minister, said that using soldiers to cover the strike would have “an unacceptable impact on defence activities”.
Ms Smith said that the “green goddesses” had been sold, and the Armed Forces had not been trained to operate new fire engines.

She said that after the White Paper on Fire Service reforms in 2003 it had been made clear that fire authorities should not be able to rely on the Armed Forces to provide cover.
“They are simply not able to offer the same level of protection . . . and should not simply be rolled out to deal with each and every dispute,” she said.

The dispute in Hertfordshire centres on the fire authority’s plan to close two part-time fire stations, with a loss of 23 jobs. The FBU says that 16 full-time posts would also be lost through measures to streamline services.

Fire chiefs maintained yesterday that all 23 part-time workers would be used in fire prevention work and that no full-time jobs would be lost. They said that the main aim of the plan was to improve community safety, a key element of the modernisation plans agreed three years ago.
Legislation after the deal gave fire authorities the power to close or merge stations. The FBU said yesterday that other brigades were considering industrial action over job cuts, including Northumberland, Cleveland, Surrey, South and North Wales.

David Lloyd, a county councillor in charge of community safety, said: “The county is being held to ransom by the FBU. It is bully-boy tactics — they are holding a gun to our heads. Threatening to jeopardise public safety like this is not the way to progress discussions.”

Mr Lloyd said every possible route had been explored to provide cover, including approaching other brigades and even other countries. But council officials said that FBU members in other brigades were refusing to cross picket lines.

Tony Smith, vice-chairman of the FBU in Hertfordshire, said: “Our lawful strike will only have a short-term impact compared with the long-term impact of the cuts we are facing.

If Whitehall is experimenting to see what happens if there is no military cover then it is inexcusable. The legal responsibility for providing emergency cover rests with the council and it is their responsibility to have contingency plans in place.”

The FBU said that if there were a big incident, such as a terrorist attack, fire crews would return to work

Apparently our leaders have been doing some "straight talking" to the politicians!

Controversial Tim

20th May 2006, 22:11

About time the fire shirkers tried to keep their public reputation when they're publicly exposed for using peoples lives as a bargaining chip in their pay talks.

Best story from the last Op Fresco was Capital Radio driving around London putting out the strikers braziers with a Green Goddess:D

Roadster280

21st May 2006, 00:04

I've been out five years, but this makes my f***ing blood boil.

In the last strike by these "people", I was driving up the M1, northbound, somewhere in Yorkshire. I saw a Green Goddess struggling like a ba$tard up a hill on the M1 in the other direction, with police escort, all blues and twos. Must have been doing all of 20mph.

All I could think of was some poor souls being in trouble, in fear of their lives and needing their help. And the unspeakable filth manning braziers outside firestations, full of perfectly serviceable and modern equipment.

If I had come across one of those individuals in the next few hours I would have given them 6'2" of (very f***ing angry) bad news.

Yet again, the Services, (dont recall if it was RN/Army/RAF manned Green Goddess, but it REALLY doesn't matter) mopped up the mess. At least I hope they did, on this occasion.

We all volunteered to die for them too. It really GRIPS MY $HIT. God bless all of you.

Going for a beer to calm down. After all, I can. I live in the free world.

green granite

21st May 2006, 07:05

If a company does poor maintenance and it leads to an accident said company is liable to be charged with corporate manslaughter. People on strike who don't attend a fire in which people die, Bet they don't get prosecuted

mlc

21st May 2006, 08:59

The cover that we provided at the last strike made we realise just what an easy job Fireman have. Only got called out once...to a woman who'd set her microwaved mince pies on fire!!

mutleyfour

21st May 2006, 10:40

Thank the Lord, Have done a stint on those Green Goddesses before and wasn't fun, especially trying to follow a Police Vauxhall senator with ABS and the like.
With regard to the Firepersons (is that what they are called nowadays) I feel they should have an enforced no right to strike the same as the military. I for one am sick of the sight of Fire strikes and will not be tooting my horn in anyones direction as a means of support.

GeeRam

21st May 2006, 11:43

About time the fire shirkers tried to keep their public reputation when they're publicly exposed for using peoples lives as a bargaining chip in their pay talks.

Actually I think you'll find that this isn't about pay, but the closure of fire stations and therefore a reduced public service.......which as this was in the area that only 5 months ago saw europe's largest post war conflagration seems bizarre.....:ugh:

Probably because the local authority would rather spend the money on a creche facility for 'disadvantaged lesbian single mothers' or something equally daft....:rolleyes:

mbga9pgf

21st May 2006, 12:14

Actually I think you'll find that this isn't about pay, but the closure of fire stations and therefore a reduced public service.......which as this was in the area that only 5 months ago saw europe's largest post war conflagration seems bizarre.....:ugh:
Probably because the local authority would rather spend the money on a creche facility for 'disadvantaged lesbian single mothers' or something equally daft....:rolleyes:

.... Or try and scrape together funds from a depleted budget as a result of militant commie firemen, getting paid more than me for a 3 day working week not including overtime and "jobs on the side", whilst suffering only a fraction of in service losses to personnel compared to the armed forces. :mad: :mad: :mad:

The Gorilla

21st May 2006, 13:23

Mba
If you don't like what you do then leave mate!

Everytime the firemen subject comes up the right winghy element on here come out of the wood work.

Fact 1. This is a local dispute over station closures and local working practices.

Fact 2. They are allowed by law to strike if they so wish.

Fact 3. To be able to organise a legal strike these days takes a miracle.

Fact 4. The fact that HMG refuses to provide military emergency cover isn't the firemens problem or yours.

Fact 5. In the real world out here we can say no and take action to back it up.

Fact 6. People don't get paid whilst being on strike so unbelievable as this may seem to Guardian and Daily Mail readers, people don't go on strike for petty reasons!

:rolleyes:

Roadster280

21st May 2006, 13:55

Gorilla,

I must take issue with one of your "facts". In particular, "fact 3". Given that in "fact two", you had said that there is a legal right to strike, then a "miracle" is not necessary. Following the procedure is all. I also take issue with the use of "these days". This implies that in days of yore, it was a lot easier to bring the country to its knees. Good egg.

The "Tolpuddle Martyrs" should have fallen into the grave and stayed there, never to be remembered, except by their relatives. No more significant than anyone else who died due to misadventure. Striking is just plain stupid.

There are clear lessons throughout history. Mr Scargill and his band of merry men managed to decimate their industry. No more coalminers. Do we need coal? Yes. Is it cheaper to import it? Yes. Was the cost of labour the reason why it fell by the wayside? Yes. Is the coal still in the ground? Yes.

Did Mr Gilchrist get his 40%? No. Did the country laugh at him? Yes. Is he still the FBU leader? No.

Did the car industry have labour problems in the 70s? Yes. Have we got one now? A couple of assembly plants, none British owned. Hell, even the GM workers in Ellesmere Port decided it would be a good idea to strike to protest the reduction in output at their plant. WTF???? If the car they make doesnt sell, causing the company to lose money over it through striking isnt going to help, now is it?

Here in the US, the Delta pilots were considering strike action after having pay cuts imposed, to help get out of bankruptcy. If they had gone on strike for even one day, the airline would have been finished, and a massive own goal scored by the pilots on behalf of every employee and every supplier and every traveller.

The lessons of striking go on and on. The concept is as anachronistic as witch-dunking or fighting wars with mounted cavalry. It has no place in modern society.

However, the military do not have the right to strike, but historically have been asked to cover the bare minimum fire cover when lesser individuals have gone on strike. To cap it all, they even blockade their equipment.

A national disgrace. Thank the lord I live in a country where striking is not only industrially suicidal, it is viewed as downright unpatriotic. For God's sake, the firemen here are revered as HEROES. One only has to look at the caps and T-shirts being worn by people who are clearly not firemen. Some work to do by the firemen in the UK, I think. Quietly, unassumingly and diligently. They could be revered as heroes too. Just like the Armed Forces.

Climebear

21st May 2006, 14:37

Mba
Fact 4. The fact that HMG refuses to provide military emergency cover isn't the firemens problem or yours.

As someone who lives in the strike effected region, it could be my problem!

CashMachine

21st May 2006, 14:41

O.K,
All you whinging f**kers out there complaining about the firefighters trying to stop the fire service being "leaned".
The FBU are trying to stop the "modernisation", or maybe your more familiar with the term leaning, of the fire brigade. How many people on this forum have whinged about the RAF being leaned and what an absolute disaster that is????
This dispute isn't about money, it's about the government and local authorities shutting down fire stations, trimming back on services and giving YOU a poorer service! Centralsied call centres don't work (anyone tried to explain to the operator in scotland where the incident is when dialling 222(2)??), the fire brigade looked at other countries that use it and what a cr*p service it was.
If the government get their way, when you ring 999 in the middle of the night because your house is on fire, the nearest "on call" fire station in your county may be 40 miles away and they will have to call in the full crew as it's only manned by the telephone answering crew at night! Be warned!!!!

The Gorilla

21st May 2006, 14:56

Clime

Only if you have a fire on a day they are on strike and let's be honest if that happened it wouldn't be your day would it?
:}

Roadster

Are you English or American?

mbga9pgf

21st May 2006, 15:43

dantura

21st May 2006, 15:44

IMHO, I think what the problem here is that a lot of people [in the forces] are still quite embittered with Op Fiasco, which, lets face it, took a lot of overworked people away from their overworked sections and families.

At the time, the firemen, as good and dedicated as they are, lost a lot of good will from the people covering their shifts, who were being paid an awful lot less to do an awful lot more (OOA's etc).

It now seems that a 'cry wolf' situation has occured and any strike by them for whatever reason leaves a bitter taste.

All IMHO of course.:)

D

The Otter's Pocket

21st May 2006, 15:45

Roadster
Well Said - Finally a Tommy Tank with a bit of nowce.

The Fire Service or Resuce Brigade or whoever they are nowadays are poorly led and very poorly managed. However that does not hide the fact that the service is a disgrace and like the Police are in desparate need of reorganisation.
Why would anybody nowadays believe that a system set up for the 60's and 70's be at its optimum performance today?
They have lost the respect of the nation, however we want to put them back on the list of our hero's, yet they are making it very difficult.
Who these days deserves a job for life?
They may make it easier if they did some work at the station rather than the 3 part-time jobs that they have.
Regards
TOP

CashMachine

21st May 2006, 16:14

Half the trouble was that, at the start of the dispute, the goverment stepped in to a pay deal that had already been thrashed out and agreed between the fire brigade and the local authorities who employ them. The government (who award themselves 30 odd % pay rises!!) said that they weren't happy with the deal and that it had to be changed and the fire brigade "modernised".
The government then threw the whole weight of it's spin doctors into telling us all that the fire fighters were scum, child killers, war mongers (one conservative MP actually said that the FBU were backing Saddam??(yes, I know the conservatives aren't in power)) and anything else they could to sour public sympathy. The FBU, on the other hand, relyed on "old fred who did well with the christmas doo" for their PR. Guess who won?
Another lie the Bliar government spin doctors propogated was to over-inflate fire fighters wages. A basic firefighter in London actually gets paid less than an underground train driver!
Four day week - There are plenty of shift systems in the RAF were people work so many days and then get so many days off!!!!
Anyway, I don't know what you pilots are all complaining about, how many times have you seen, on this site, someone saying "and the best part is I get paid for something I enjoy doing"!
Lastly, this dispute isn't about the FBU v the Armed forces like a lot of people seem to think it is, thats just another idea the Bliar spin doctors foster!

The Gorilla

21st May 2006, 16:18

Cashmachine

Extremely well said sir!
:D

Fg Off Max Stout

21st May 2006, 16:19

I ran out of patience for the FBU a long time ago. If the British Army announced that all private soldiers were going on strike for £30k and that firemen would have to provide cover for our operational commitments it would be considered ludicrous. When I did FRESCO, I worked with many junior ranks who earned very much less than the £30k the firemen wanted, were hanging out of their arses from all their operational commitments and then had to retrain to spend months away from home putting out burning stolen cars with 50 year old equipment. Meanwhile, the firemen either sat on their arses impounding the taxpayers' fire engines or cracked on with their second jobs.
These Trotskyist f*ckers were quite simply using the lives of members of the public (I always thought it was a fireman's vocation and duty to protect the public - silly me) as bargaining chips to try and get paid far more than they are worth. It soon became apparent that your average FBU member is in it for his paycheck and his cushy conditions and couldn't give a sh1t about the lives of the public. It was blindingly obvious that citizens would die because of the FBU strike and sure enough, many did. Firemen already have a very good deal (ever wonder why RAF firemen are clamouring to join the Fire Service) but they're living in a dream world over-valuing themselves. I respect what firemen do (when they are at work) but I have a lot more respect for a Private who gets shot at for £14k a year.
I agree with the concept of Military Aid to the Civil Community, but this should be a safety net to get the country out of a sticky situation when it hits the fan - it is NOT a system to allow firemen to walk out whenever they feel a bit iffy. When you have pilots and gp capts doing the Fire Service's job for them something has gone badly wrong and I don't think SACs were too chipper either.
Sack the lot of them and then offer to re-employ them on sensible terms.:mad:
Cash Machine, care to explain the relevence of I don't know what you pilots are all complaining about, how many times have you seen, on this site, someone saying "and the best part is I get paid for something I enjoy doing"!Yes, I thoroughly enjoy flying and I don't particularly enjoy playing firemen. Neither do I grumble about the fact that I could get paid up to about 5 times more doing it commercially. What's your point?

In fact, at the time, the firemen were striking for more pay than I received as a front line support helicopter pilot. Think about the relative levels of training, skill, ability, risk and conditions and tell me if the firemen are living in the real world.

Roadster280

21st May 2006, 16:45

Otter's Pocket - Sorry to disappoint, I'm not a Tommy Tank. I'm as English as John Smith's Tadcaster Bitter. Or striking firefighters. I do however live in the US. I work for a UK company and go back three or four times a year.
Gorilla - I think that answers your question.
It's a sad commentary on the UK, but having lived here a long while, I won't be going back to live. I didn't think I would ever say that, especially not when I was drawing the Queen's shilling. But things like this leave a bitter taste. Lots of Brits slag off the Septics, but at the end of the day, there's a gulf in terms of the patriotic nature of the two countries. My girlfriend is an elementary teacher. Her class "sponsors" an Army platoon in Iraq, sending them photos and goodies from home. The guys on the ground are really grateful, and explain in their letters that it reminds them of why they joined the military, to protect those back home, and a class of 24 9-year olds is a very good example. I can identify with that.
Sorry for the thread drift, but in some small way, it is relevant to the firefighters' perceived lack of selflessness that we in the (In my case, ex-)military find so distasteful.

airborne_artist

21st May 2006, 16:48

You do have to wonder why it is that the fire service's own figures show that over 40 people apply for each vacancy. No full-time fire service is undermanned. Compare and contrast with any of the three Armed Services.

CashMachine

21st May 2006, 18:44

Fg Off Max Stout,

Are you really saying that as a pilot (with flying pay) you get less than £30K? If you are, you're being done!

Yes, I thoroughly enjoy flying and I don't particularly enjoy playing firemen. Neither do I grumble about the fact that I could get paid up to about 5 times more doing it commercially. What's your point?

My point is, you get paid to do a job that you would otherwise regard as a good hobby! Now, I don't mean that detramentally, I'm sure you do a hard job, but some would also say all you do is sit around on your arse all day (albeit strapped to a helicopter!!). Do you know anybody who would like to run into a collapsing burning building for a hobby??
And anyway, I doubt whether you actually "played fireman" and put out fires but rather manned a control centre or suchlike.

However, this is all getting off the point. Yes, I'm sure there are some very leftwing fireman, but the vast majority of Mr and Mrs average firefighters are behind these actions because they believe that at the end of the day there will be a drop in services if the government get their way. Oh, and some firefighters went on strike before because the pay rise that was finally agreed to after they were beaten down was subsequently lowered just before they were due to get it!!

TheInquisitor

21st May 2006, 18:49

16% is still an astronomical pay rise in anybody's book!

And all that for sitting on their arses doing nothing (quite literally) for 90% of their time on duty, which is only 50% of the time (4 on 4 off) - 90% of 50% is not alot...

Comparisons with Tube drivers are pointless - thanks to arch-trotskiite Red Ken, they get paid a small fortune for sitting there all day and pushing 2 buttons - one marked "GO", the other "STOP".

CashMachine

21st May 2006, 19:03

TheInquisitor,

Where did you get 16% from?

According to the link below (from Aug 2005), all members got 3.4% except for some managers who got up to 4.7%!

http://www.fbu.org.uk/newspress/ffmag/2005/0805/ff_aug_05_p4.pdf

The Gorilla

21st May 2006, 19:28

I think that a lot of the problems stem from how you guys who are serving view yourselves. You are extremely over worked, under resourced, receive minuscule pay rises and are completely powerless to change your fortunes. But you would be surprised at just how many industries are awarding large pay rises. 16% is more than the 12% I got this year but a lot less than the MP's got I believe.

As for the ignorance of what tube drivers actually do well what can I say??

The Forces are suffering precisely because you cannot strike or be represented at any level. If we couldn't strike out here then it wouldn't be long before we were back to the dark days of being paid in tokens which could only be exchanged for goods in the companies own shops. That would apply to private and public sector jobs. Remember that a union is run democratically and it always takes a majority vote of members before action can be taken.

Since the kind and gentle Mrs T ripped the heart out of our green and pleasant land the me, me, me culture is all that matters now. What's in it for me and I'm alright jack still flourishes on the shop floor. So of course the average fireman is in it just for a paycheck! What else would he do it for?

Your sense of duty and willingness to serve no matter how bad things get, are what sets the Military apart from the rest of us and is exactly why you are being so successfully exploited by Mr Bliar and co.

One final point, that man of upstanding integrity Mr Prescott has had his fingers in the Fire Brigade dispute for some time now. He hasn't helped matters at all!!

:ugh:

Almost_done

21st May 2006, 19:29

Fg Off Max Stout,
Are you really saying that as a pilot (with flying pay) you get less than £30K? If you are, you're being done!

I worked with many junior ranks who earned very much less than the £30k the firemen wanted, were hanging out of their arses from all their operational commitments and then had to retrain to spend months away from home putting out burning stolen cars with 50 year old equipment.
There I think that puts that into perspective Cash Machine, I don't think he said as a pilot I get.........
They could be revered as heroes too. Just like the Armed Forces.
Possibly like the US Armed Forces, but when have we been revered recently?
The US Forces have a far better understanding, support, goodwill of their communities than we in the UK have, I have seen our standing in the community fall, with all this PC rubbish. If we stand up in the community we are at liberty of being pilloried, due to the use of the Forces as a political tool.
Not having a go at our Lords and Masters there, as we are the ultimate Political Tool. But we have to be used sparingly, especially in todays climate of overstreach.

Two's in

21st May 2006, 19:30

Whatever the colour of your politics, it is a real tragedy when once again individuals who routinely go into harms way for the General Public in the normal course of their duties can so easily be cast in this role of "Trotsky agitators". What on earth could possess the FBU leadership to so repeatedly and predictably go down this path, and why does the Government seem to revel in making martyrs (sometimes literally) of the long suffering public in order to prove they won't be cowed by this type of behaviour. It's the most pointless Dick-Dance in the calendar, but before you all throw another Fireman on the brazier, you might want to start with the FBU leadership (there's an oxymoron, right there) and those who execute such asinine Goverment policy, all at the public's expense, in both Pounds sterling and lives.

Fg Off Max Stout

21st May 2006, 19:52

In answer to your question Cash, at the time, a few years back, as a relatively junior Fg Off on lowest rate flying pay, I was not earning the £30k that the firemen were striking for. The attitude of the FBU p1ssed me off immensely and I believe they really showed off their true colours - a total disregard for the safety of the public, a hatred for the servicemen who had to pick up the pieces and a desire only to maintain and further improve their own already very good conditions, at the expense of other more stretched areas of public spending (mentioning no names). What is more, firemen have shown themselves to be more prone to strike action than any other workers since the miners. It seems that if they get hob-nobs instead of jammy dodgers, it's "Out, brothers, out" to destroy the evils of capitalism and enforce a global workers' party.

Although I was not burning rubber in a GeeGee, I attended many fires in my role and had a great deal of sympathy especially for the more junior servicemen who were being directly taken advantage of by the firemen. Those that didn't use the strike time to attend their second jobs, sat on the picket line preventing the use of their engines and giving the finger to any passing servicemen. People died because the FBU demanded that their members, who (despite playing an important role in society) are effectively manual labourers, should receive a white collar professional's salary. The firemen's prescottian leader, Gilchrist, showed himself to be an illiterate, malicious, socialist thug who was wilfully supported by the FBU membership purely on account of the riches he promised. He pursued his socialist agenda at the expense of public lives. Working on FRESCO opened my eyes to some realities, and I lost almost all my respect for British firemen that winter.

Roadster280

21st May 2006, 20:08

Since the kind and gentle Mrs T ripped the heart out of our green and pleasant land the me, me, me culture is all that matters now.

I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with this. The union leaders in the 70s and 80s were the ones doing the ripping. I firmly remember (in my childhood), Arthur Scargill addressing his congregation, saying "I want my members to work for three days and be paid for five". "Red Robbo" at Longbridge much the same. The NUR, even the newspaper printers. Who ever hears of SOGAT today?

The Conservative government of 1979 set about cutting out this disease in our society. On the day of her election success, Mrs Thatcher gave the police a 12% pay rise. The new government took on, and defeated the unions.

The UK then boomed. Inward investment. Divestiture of unprofitable business. No, we dont make cars or mine coal, because we are too affluent to have people go down pits for the little money (pittance!) that would be required to be competitive.

Let's also not forget that this is what the country desired. The Thatcher government won by a landslide in 1979, and then was reelected four years later. The dinosaurial Labour Party, with the likes of Michael Foot in charge were unelectable.

The modernisation of the Labour Party under Smith, Blair and Brown was very necessary for them. Now there are only shades of Conservatism. Old habits die hard though, and the "New Labour" policies are not Conservative enough, whilst the Conservative Party itself has had a string of successive poor leaders.

Time for the FBU to move with the times also.

CashMachine

21st May 2006, 20:24

Almost_done,

In fact, at the time, the firemen were striking for more pay than I received as a front line support helicopter pilot.

I think you must have overlooked this bit then!

Fg Off Max Stout,

Appologies if you weren't earning that much at the time, I'll check tomorrow to see how much you would have been earning!

However, lets get back to the original post. Is it the case that the government won't supply service personnel or simply can't anymore!!:ok:

Colonal Mustard

21st May 2006, 20:55

Right,

Let me throw my penny in ,

I had worked in the fire service for 9 years, devoting approx 5 out of 7 days per week "on call" 24 hrs per day,my total yearly gross was approx 8 grand, this involved taking TWO CARS to the park when out with the family in case i got called out, i had 4 minutes to reach the fire station when required at "ANY" time day/ night, regardless of whether i was deeply involved with a bit of luvvin with the wife at the time:eek: or anything else come to think of it (ANYTHING ELSE), i watched as my kids grew up, and decided i needed a decent pension, SO what did i do?

I went on strike, not because i was a militant but because the government refused to increase my pay to a decent level, as a result i had to have a second job, but here`s the catch, in order to "serve my community" i couldnt take any ole job oh no, i had to take one that allowed a "suitable level of hours" on call, this in turn meant I had to accept a lower paid job than normal to meet this, thus i found aviation.

I move on , as i reached thirty i decided that i needed to support my family more,and amongst all else, i decided that i could EITHER

1) stay where i was and have no pension
2) pay for a private pension
3) P*** off and join something with better prospects (and a pension)

I left the fire service after the government decided "that part time firefighters do not qualify for a pension"

I now have a job i enjoy just as much for more money than i had before between both jobs combined (full & part time) and guess what, (i retire at 55)

I get home and can do the simple things in life

1) walk to the shops with the kids
2) have a bath without interruptions
3) go and get wan***** if i fancy it and not feel guilty that i "aint on call"

I cherish these things, but above all else can state from my experience that whilst squaddies are working their sox off , firefighters do an equally hazardous (albeit in different areas) job, i myself am faced with danger at times in my place of work.

but please dont slate the firefighters who at the time of writing have a lawful right to strike, and strike they will:ok:

Controversial Tim

21st May 2006, 21:00

CashMonkey,

Look up whatever pay data you want to try to divert the argument.

The fireshirkers are using peoples lives as a bargaining chip in their pay negotiations.

Do you agree with that?

Colonel Mustard,
Which one of the 40 applicants for your position got the job?

Almost_done

21st May 2006, 21:02

Almost_done,
I think you must have overlooked this bit then!

Damn these glasses :rolleyes: must drink more beer:)

However I think the issue is should we cover for the Firefighters :confused: or should they and the Police as we do not have any right to strike over pay and conditions?:ugh:

Roadster280

21st May 2006, 21:10

Right,

I cherish these things, but above all else can state from my experience that whilst squaddies are working their sox off , firefighters do an equally hazardous (albeit in different areas) job, i myself am faced with danger at times in my place of work.

Good for you for serving your community, though how striking was doing that, I have no idea. Good for you for deciding you needed a better life for your family. I did the same, and left the Service when the time came for family reasons.

I can't, however, subscribe to the view that military life and firefighting are equally hazardous. Firefighters put themselves into risky situations which are by their nature, unpredictable, and those that die, do so accidentally.

Military men put themselves into risky situations which are by their nature, unpredictable, and those that die, do so because the enemy deliberately targets them.

No-one tries to deliberately kill firemen. I don't question their bravery when they are at work, but they are not comparable levels of hazard.

Colonal Mustard

21st May 2006, 21:20

CashMonkey,

Colonel Mustard,
Which one of the 40 applicants for your position got the job?

Number 40, out of the other 39, 25 werent fit enough, 10 failed the claustraphobic test and the others remaining decided not to take up the offer after realising how much they would be on strike without pay ,the 40th felt compelled to accept as no one else wanted to do it.:D

by the way, in keeping with the thread, i cant believe the government arent covering the reduction in cover.:=

Skeleton

21st May 2006, 21:26

CashMachine

21st May 2006, 21:47

Almost_done,
Sorry, picking on you again.
However I think the issue is should we cover for the Firefighters - I don't think WE have an option!
Controversial Tim,

Look up whatever pay data you want to try to divert the argument.
On the contrary, I'm trying to put some FACTS into this argument. Why let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a good rumour, eh!
Some people on this thread are taking things very personally. The firefighters are taking perfectly legal industrial action against their employers backed by a majority vote from their union membership (you'll probably find that more firefighters voted for strike action than people voted for this sh** government (34% of the electorate??)). A basic democratic right that we in the military are here to defend. The GOVERNMENT decided to send in the overstretched military to cover.
I'm sure that most, if not all, firefighters cared that the country was going to war skeleton := !!

Colonal Mustard

21st May 2006, 21:48

We are talking about people (losest sense) who to there own ends did not care that the country was about to go to war.
Thats unforgivable and whatever else happens, I will not forgive them. Op Fiasco was a nightmare from the start and you can dress it up all you like.
The bu***** deserve nothing. Bunch of idling failed army types who want to sleep on nights. And that wether they like it or not was what this is all about.
I hope noone in this country supports them... they deserve nothing.

:D , your opinion sir, although i do beileve that the fire service derived from the navy, (watch, mess, lines, etc ,red blue and white watch (from the ensign).

and i certainly remember working (on nights i add between 0000 and 0400 on jobs with highly decorated falkland vets (ex army)who wouldnt think twice about saving you irrespective of what you say.:ok:

Roadster280

21st May 2006, 21:54

The firefighters are taking perfectly legal industrial action against their employers backed by a majority vote from their union membership

It's now equally legal to do things in the military that werent legal 10 years ago, but it doesnt mean it's morally right though.

I don't mean to be facetious. I think the real issue is whether firefighters ought to have the right to withdraw their services.

I say no.

Skeleton

21st May 2006, 21:58

Roadstar....
They did.....
As this country was getting ready to go to war!!
Mind you getting your mates to honk there horns as you stand by a fire looking hard has a lot to be said for it.
But fooled noone.
W******

Skeleton

21st May 2006, 22:00

Cash agreed..

But they still went on strike!!

Controversial Tim

21st May 2006, 22:03

So cash machine -

The fireshirkers are using peoples lives as a bargaining chip in their pay negotiations.

Do you agree with that?

Skeleton

21st May 2006, 22:11

Tim you will not win...
We are dealing with people who have to support there "meagre income" with a second job on there days off.
Hence the need to sleep on nights.
Yes they do a good job.... but so do lots of others.
They lost my support the minute they decided to "out themselves" in the midst of preperation for war.
Your on nights you work or snore.
Why should they be different?
I do think there kit is "hard" though.. love the sunglasses.

tonkatechie

21st May 2006, 22:30

I served on a GG (and later on a RG) crew in Op Fresco. I remember being dumfounded by the FBU's 'request' for a 40% increase in wages, claiming it was needed to bring the pay up to modern standards, following years of no or little pay-rises. I asked myself then: "what the :mad: were they doing for so long before pushing so hard for an increase?" After all, it was obvious to the biggest idiot that they were never going to get that much, even if you take into account the old 'ask for more than you really want, so everyone walks away feeling happy' scenario. However, despite this, my training (BART course and GG training) showed me that the firemen do have a strenuous and dangerous job (I still ache at the thought of carrying a man heavier than me down a 2 storey ladder). This respect for what they do is still tainted by a lack of respect for their striking - they court themselves as heroes (and if I was saved by one, that's what I'd consider him / her) but do real heroes abandon you in a time of peril? I understand that it's really a catch 22 situation, afterall, they had their livelihoods to think of. However, if the armed forces were given the right to strike, I don't think I could do it.
Gilchrist certainly led the FBU down a dark path that autumn / winter, and I wonder who or how this latest strike has really come about. What is for certain is that the level of political wrangling and spin in all of this is disgusting - people's lives are at stake.:(
Also, I don't recall that any firefighters actually blockaded equipment, rather they said that if it was used by the military they would consider it u/s until it had been serviced. Hence the reason our RG came from a training unit.
Oh, and I didn't mind if I got abuse from any firemen - I just politely thanked them for all the extra pay I was getting in the form of LSSA:ok:

opso

22nd May 2006, 00:26

...whilst squaddies are working their sox off , firefighters do an equally hazardous (albeit in different areas) job

How many firefighters (including retained) are there and how many have been killed on duty in the past 10 years?
How many servicemen (including reservists) are there and how many have been killed on duty in the past 10 years?

Still reckon that the job is equally hazardous? Reducing the time period of sampling only makes the firefighters job less hazardous by comparison, owing to the impact of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, if trying to show the real level of hazard faced, try the comparison of firefighters against people resurfacing roads and you'll see that the latter claims more lives on the job!

Ali Barber

22nd May 2006, 04:46

This is a local strike about local issues. The bigger issue would be what happens if the FBU decide to strike nationally, now that the Government has said it has solld off the Green Goddesses and doesn't have enough military personnel to cover for them!

Controversial Tim

22nd May 2006, 07:46

In that case it's a local strike by local fireshirkers risking local lives, it's OK?

What if there were outsiders there....

Skeleton

22nd May 2006, 11:14

1. Govt sell (at last) Green Goddesses.

2. FBU start making noises about strike action.

Surely these two events can not be connected :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Opso makes some very valid points. Kind of puts into perspective the "Its not what we do, its what were prepared to do" claptrap they love to portray.

Edit... cos i missed a line :)

Bluntend

22nd May 2006, 11:31

There is a bit more discussion on this topic over on E-Goat:
http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=281
and again:
http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1032
For what it's worth, many of the contributers on e-goat don't get flying pay and have first hand experience of covering the last fire strike.

Colonal Mustard

22nd May 2006, 18:32

How many firefighters (including retained) are there and how many have been killed on duty in the past 10 years?
How many servicemen (including reservists) are there and how many have been killed on duty in the past 10 years?
Still reckon that the job is equally hazardous? Reducing the time period of sampling only makes the firefighters job less hazardous by comparison, owing to the impact of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, if trying to show the real level of hazard faced, try the comparison of firefighters against people resurfacing roads and you'll see that the latter claims more lives on the job!

YES,i do feel they are equally hazardous having done both.....i feel i can comment with knowledge.....valid point though, i think i can safely say that at times when sat in a slit trench with the threat of a mortar round incoming i WOULD rather be tucked up in bed....and conversley when trying to perform resucitation on a 6 year old in a garden who subsequently died after he was pulled out of a house fire i DREAMT of wanting to be in the NAAFI again.

Sorry Moderator if i overstepped

The Gorilla

22nd May 2006, 19:11

The bottom line if I may be blunt? Those of you who serve do so to protect the rights of those who don't. It is your job to do all the cr*p that this country demands of you so that firemen etc, misguided or not, can go about their daily business iaw the law of the land. Like it or not that's the way it has been, is and always will be. No it isn't fair but then neither is what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You do however, just like the firemen have a choice in the matter.

You can leave!

:)

Colonal Mustard

22nd May 2006, 19:16

One final point, that man of upstanding integrity Mr Prescott has had his fingers in the Fire Brigade dispute for some time now. He hasn't helped matters at all!!

:ugh:

and in somewhere else according to the news of the world:mad:

opso

22nd May 2006, 19:43

YES,i do feel they are equally hazardous having done both...I don't deny that the jobs are both emotionally or psychologically demanding and your example deals with that aspect, not the hazardous nature of the job. But the hazard levels aren't the same, or else there would be as many firefighter fatalities as there are military ones... Either firemen are just naturally incredibly lucky (at which point, why don't they win the lottery every week?) or else they face fewer and/or lower grade hazards that are more easily countered than those facing servicemen.

Colonal Mustard

22nd May 2006, 20:36

I don't deny that the jobs are both emotionally or psychologically demanding and your example deals with that aspect, not the hazardous nature of the job. But the hazard levels aren't the same, or else there would be as many firefighter fatalities as there are military ones... Either firemen are just naturally incredibly lucky (at which point, why don't they win the lottery every week?) or else they face fewer and/or lower grade hazards that are more easily countered than those facing servicemen.

Or have a strong union that promotes Health & Safety in the workplace,

i absolutely accept that everybody`s views are different on Hazard`s/ risk etc, but pause for thought, i am currently reading a book titled "tail end charlies" by john nicholl,(and a fine read if i may say thus far) in it he describes how the crew of bombers had an exit of just 22 inches within which 5 of the crew had to squeeze through in order to escape the burning fuselage, and i quote " almost criminally too small" by an aviation specialist (page 148).....picture the scene in todays climate (firefighters`s wouldnt go near the plane, as a dynamic risk assessment would take place and it would be deemed too high a risk).the military however would be told to get on with it or face a beasting (or worse...).

In summary

Firefighters have a Health & Safety policy in place as a result of fatalities in the workplace and lessons being learnt as a result.

The Military claim they have a Health & Safety policy in the workplace UNTIL they go to war then it is an acceptable risk.

SOME in the higher chain of command want to advance their careers BEFORE the lives of their staff, in the fire service it would stand less chance of happening because the firefighters are able to air their concerns back to the OIC

oh almost forgot, i must say that the RAF boys & Girls i went on the lash with one evening whilst on strike were absolutely bloody marvellous.

BTW looking at this post it seems to have detracted from the original point.....sorry

TheInquisitor

22nd May 2006, 21:50

I had worked in the fire service for 9 years, devoting approx 5 out of 7 days per week "on call" 24 hrs per day,my total yearly gross was approx 8 grand
You should have joined full time then, Mustard - youd've been working alot less for alot more money!

Something doesn't smell right about your claims, I'm afraid.

PPRuNe Towers

22nd May 2006, 22:05

TI - Rural services for example. Plenty of documentation on the interweb thingy if you care to check. Always the easiest units to underequip, kill with a thousand cuts or just dissolve with a sexy centralisation plan.

This despite facing chemical and structural hazards rivalling any urban brigade.

Rob

4Foxtrot

22nd May 2006, 23:09

I've just been reading 'Rules of Engagement' by our favourite ex-Colonel, Mr Tim Collins. Despite his inflammatory comments about the future if the RAF, he has some choice words to say about Op Fresco:

The phone rings, you say: "Hello, 1 R Irish Fire and Rescue Service. A fire? Where? We'll be right over. You then tell the peeler sitting drinking tea where the fire is and you crash the lads out in the Goddess. When you get there, attach the hoses to the fire hydrant and point the hoses at the fire. Then it's water on, fire out, water off, roll up yer hoses and home for tea and medals. Questions?

While it's good the Forces won't get double tapped for ops and filling in for fire-fighters, I'm relieved that no one has been killed, yet, because the fire-fighters are neglecting their duties. Yes, I would always like more money, and yes, thousands of my colleagues are being made redundant and yes, plenty of my stations are being closed, but no I'm not going to go on strike.

<rant mode>=off

Colonal Mustard

23rd May 2006, 20:58

Something doesn't smell right about your claims, I'm afraid.

what part, ill gladly confirm it :ok:

see below, my last p60, sorry for the size i`ll try to reduce it tommorrow when i get time

Colonal Mustard

23rd May 2006, 21:19

http://www.mustard.me.uk/wages.gif

ZH875

23rd May 2006, 21:33

I like the bit where it says 'In this employment' :)

No mention of the second job on this site then Mr Colonel 'French' Mustard

Roadster280

23rd May 2006, 22:28

Col M -

Seems to me you paid tax on the whole lot. No personal allowance. This must therefore have been used elsewhere. For net 6K, or rougly f*** all, it does seem somewhat confusing. Did you get free housing or something?

The Helpful Stacker

23rd May 2006, 22:50

The codes BR, D0 and 0T are mainly used where you have a second source of income and all your tax allowances have been included in the tax code applied to your first or main source of income. They simply tell your employer, pension payer or benefit office how much tax to deduct.

Quoted from here (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/p3.htm)

Scud-U-Like

24th May 2006, 07:46

airborne_artist

24th May 2006, 08:44

Mustard - if your were retained 9as it says on yr payslip) that means you were not FT - retained = lads who work in the butcher/bakery/candlestickmakery who turn out for fires when the siren/bleeper goes.

You had, or could have had another job, also paying you a wage. My best man was an accountant and partner at [big firm] and also a retained firefighter in a village in Oxon.

Colonal Mustard

24th May 2006, 20:41

as a result i had to have a second job, but here`s the catch, in order to "serve my community" i couldnt take any ole job oh no, i had to take one that allowed a "suitable level of hours" on call, this in turn meant I had to accept a lower paid job than normal to meet this, thus i found aviation:ok:

this bit you mean, yes i had a second job that paid £20,000

Total income of £28,000 approx

Roadster. no free housing i`m afraid, i was retained and thus didnt qualify for it

Roadster280

25th May 2006, 00:10

I had a drinking buddy many years ago (about 18 yrs ago) who was a retained chap in a far flung part of Derbyshire. Almost Manchester in fact. He lived in a MQ type thing, even though he was retained. Mind you, was a while ago.

I still think the FBU are in need of modernisation/abolition/annihilation, and then the firemen might get the recognition for doing a dangerous job, but without the collective whingeing. They might then get a higher salary.

Until then, the chaps/chapesses in green/blue are exposed to the vagaries of a trade union. Just f***ing wrong IMHO.

Skeleton

25th May 2006, 23:02

LOL :) Get off that fence Rafloo.

Fair point though.

Trouble is with firemen, they learn from day one:

1. There hard
2. There hard
3. There hard
4. There hard
5. There hard

Hopefully this time even they will realise the lead donkey may not be quite as big an ass as them.

I note no reply so far from anyone regarding how many firemen die on active duty compared to servicemen.

There is no service industry in this country that will tolerate what you guys want and rightly so.

theundisputedtopgun

26th May 2006, 09:01

It all boils down to the firefighters attempting to preserve their cosy little archaic practices, such as kipping, rather than working, on night shifts. Their 'concern' for public safety is a smokescreen. It was not so long ago they were trying to hold the country to ransom for a 40% pay rise. And they wonder why some people are a tad sceptical about their motives....

They are trying to keep retained stations open, nothing else. You'll have time to think about it whilst your house is burning down and the nearest fire appliance is still miles away.

Since the retained firefighters have more than likely just worked all day, i think they should be allowed to sleep at night if not answering a call. If you meant it towards the wholetime firefighters, what would you like them to do at night? Come round to yours at 3:30am and inform you of the local fire safety campaigns? Why can't they rest when not answering a call? I know i'd rather be rescued by someone feeling slightly fresh than someone completely drained.

airborne_artist

26th May 2006, 09:13

theundisputedtopgun - loads of things can be done in darkness. Training - for a start - computer-based, classroom-based, reading from books, fitness. Hydrant checking in the locality.

And when they've done that they can polish their helmets. :E

Colonal Mustard

26th May 2006, 19:09

theundisputedtopgun - loads of things can be done in darkness. Training - for a start - computer-based, classroom-based, reading from books, fitness. Hydrant checking in the locality.
And when they've done that they can polish their helmets. :E

personally a good old game of colditz always goes down well:eek:

Elmlea

26th May 2006, 19:44

SO what did i do?
I went on strike, not because i was a militant but because the government refused to increase my pay to a decent level, as a result i had to have a second job,

No offence Colonal Mustard, but didn't you look at how much the job paid, what the terms and conditions were, and what the pension rights were, before you signed up?

There's no excuse for striking in this sense. From what I understand, firefighters are annoyed that they haven't had their pay increased and have decided to stop doing their job until they get more.

How about this, firefighters; if you don't like your conditions, you don't like your pay, and you don't like what the government's doing to your job; quit, sod off, and get another job!!!!!!!

Nobody is forcing you to stay there, and if you were too daft to read how much it paid before you took the job then you've made your own bed.

Colonal Mustard

26th May 2006, 20:19

No offence Colonal Mustard, but didn't you look at how much the job paid, what the terms and conditions were, and what the pension rights were, before you signed up?
There's no excuse for striking in this sense. From what I understand, firefighters are annoyed that they haven't had their pay increased and have decided to stop doing their job until they get more.
How about this, firefighters; if you don't like your conditions, you don't like your pay, and you don't like what the government's doing to your job; quit, sod off, and get another job!!!!!!!
Nobody is forcing you to stay there, and if you were too daft to read how much it paid before you took the job then you've made your own bed.

I joined at 21 , keen to Give it a go,have a look and see what i thought,(youthful asparations if you like)then after doing my basic training, Breathing apparatus course and then got my HGV with advanced i thought i owed them something, that philosophy stayed for 9 years until i was about 30 , after having my fair share of fatals etc and at the point i started a family thats when my personal life changed and i got a better grip on politics etc i did just as you said, i realised that if i left then they would find someone else to replace me and i did just that ...... I LEFT (after having been on strike etc):}

btw it aint a case of being daft to realise the pay and conditions,(i was a younger!!! 21 year old) i bet your first few jobs after school didnt involve you poring over a contract of employment to establish you had enough beer tokens for the week, you were just interested in getting a job that you thought would bring you a fortune?:ok: