Firemen Strike
Don't think the military get involved anymore.
Google throws up all sorts of results abouts non-union firefighters, private companies etc filling the job, such as (for example)
Google throws up all sorts of results abouts non-union firefighters, private companies etc filling the job, such as (for example)
The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority entered into an interim contract in November 2012 with Securitas Security Service (UK) Ltd for the provision of Emergency Fire Crew Capability Services (EFCC) in the event of strike action.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's on some regional fire service websites, that they are willing to pay civvie volunteers £150 a day!! To stand in during a strike as emergency fire crew.
https://atsv7.wcn.co.uk/search_engin...=264&language=
A doff my cap to the fire brigade union though, at least they stand upto being shafted by the gov't and are trying to stop their service deteriorate.
https://atsv7.wcn.co.uk/search_engin...=264&language=
A doff my cap to the fire brigade union though, at least they stand upto being shafted by the gov't and are trying to stop their service deteriorate.
Last edited by gr4techie; 17th Sep 2013 at 16:10.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Based on a 5 day week that £150 it is only the equivalent of £39k PA. Not exactly rock-star wages.
3 years of university, completing a minimum of 2,300 hours of placements and 2,300 hours of academic study to become a registered nurse for a starting wage £6k less than a fire fighter, sorry if my heart doesn't bleed a little for them.
Yes, yes, I know. No one forced us to do it etc...
Last edited by The Helpful Stacker; 17th Sep 2013 at 18:23.
A doff my cap to the fire brigade union though, at least they stand upto being shafted by the gov't and are trying to stop their service deteriorate.
2. They want to receive it when they stop working rather than doing what everyone else does - work until (at least) 60 and then receive that pension. Nobody says they have to be fireman once they cannot meet the fitness requirements. They can continue their second jobs for the last decade.
3. They want to be be paid to have staff levels at night even though the workload is only one third of the daytime workload, or should I say they want to sleep and get paid two thirds of the time.
Yes, its all about the service deteriorating and nothing to do with wanting the gravy train to continue.
There are far more dangerous occupations in the UK as the firemen are well trained and don't die very often.More folks probably die working on building sites these days. papers were comparing them with the police or military which you guys should be up in arms about. Fireman are trained to not give their lives .
Its us taxpayers who are getting shafted by the fireman.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes
on
29 Posts
To be fair to the unions (and I am not fair to them very often), they only want what their employer has already agreed to in the past. We plan for our retirement based upon what we expect to have from our occupational pensions, and if this changes for the worse towards the end of our careers then we could be facing an old age of poverty.
From my point of view, Gordon Brown was stupid enough to arrange my PAS pension to be quite lucrative and having retired I am living to an agreeable standard without having to have taken out additional pension savings, or having to seek additional employment. I would not wish a sudden fall in expectation at a late point in a career on anyone. However, if new pension arrangements only affect future recruits then that is fair. (I do not want to get into an argument about the future military pension changes - I am not affected -yet).
From my point of view, Gordon Brown was stupid enough to arrange my PAS pension to be quite lucrative and having retired I am living to an agreeable standard without having to have taken out additional pension savings, or having to seek additional employment. I would not wish a sudden fall in expectation at a late point in a career on anyone. However, if new pension arrangements only affect future recruits then that is fair. (I do not want to get into an argument about the future military pension changes - I am not affected -yet).
I do have to agree with your position there, Wensleydale. Change someone's pension expectatins when it's too late to do much about it is neither reasonable nor morally supportable. This has nothing to do with how good or bad their pension agreement was, not anything to do with what anyone else's pay or future expectations may be. It's what they were contracted to expect, that needs to be honoured. Same as the AFPS needs to be.
There will be a large amount of a small cadre of our people being f***ed about by Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubs's actions (they know who they are). We have had to accept a pay freeze and a new pension with retirement of 60; so why can't the firemen!
Apparently, we're all in it together! Unless you're an MP or a firefighter!
Not happy....
Apparently, we're all in it together! Unless you're an MP or a firefighter!
Not happy....
Well, I suppose it had to happen.....the cheap shots have started. I have the utmost respect for those of you who've served our country (I flunked OASC Biggin Hill twice, so didn't have what it takes.)........but come on gents, don't believe all you read in the Daily Mail! Take it from me, as a serving firefighter of 27 years service, I am devastated that we're here again. I voted against strike action because I know we'll never win! When people sign up to a pension scheme, it really should be honoured. I'm fully aware of this countries economic woes.......but let's remember what's happened.......this country is bankrupt because of profligate politicians. These idiots squander money knowing full well, they'll never be held to account. I don't need to site examples because that would take too long........we all know where the money's gone. Just so you know, we had a 3 year pay freeze and then a 1% pay rise. Our pension contributions have gone up considerably and will no longer keep pace with inflation. No, I'm not asking for sympathy.....I wouldn't get it.....people are losing their jobs left, right and centre........and that is tragic for all concerned. What I am asking, is that maybe some of you aren't so quick to judge.
Thanks to Gr4techie, Wensleydale, Courtney Mil, and of course Smudgesmith for at least considering the other side.
Nonetheless.......best wishes to you all.
Dave
PS For what it's worth, I don't have 2 jobs.
Thanks to Gr4techie, Wensleydale, Courtney Mil, and of course Smudgesmith for at least considering the other side.
Nonetheless.......best wishes to you all.
Dave
PS For what it's worth, I don't have 2 jobs.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about those in the military who served, as recently as the early/mid 70s, when there WAS no pension? Change happens, life changes - sometimes for the better (I assume the fire service didn't complain when the pension changed for the better when times were good?), sometimes for the worse - unions, rightly, fight for change in the form of improvement. But sometimes, change is unavoidable if we don't want our kids to be working until age 75. but we talk about change. In 1992 and 2004, the firefighters pension scheme was mooted for change and firefighters did quite well out of it - in 2004, many folk working within the more general employment field were allowed to be members, whereas previously, they weren't.
Under the pension arrangements of 2004, a firefighter with just 25 years' or more service could retire at age 50 with no actuarial reduction. A full pension was also paid to anyone with 30 years service and anyone who retired before "April 2013 aged 50 or older with 25 or more years service" was to be considered exempt from this change. So this isn't change that has been done on the hoof. This was planned as far back as 1992, and these changes were cemented and agreed as recently as 2004. It seems that despite accepting the changes then, now that the trigger has passed (April) the firefighters union is now simply wanting to have its cake and eat it. Political agenda, anyone?
Many people bang on about the government being to blame.. but the cost at stake here dwarfs any political skullduggery. Has anyone considered the biggest change - greater life expectancy? The cost of the existing firefighters scheme in 2004 was 37.5% of pensionable pay over a typical career. This represented an increase (erm, 'change') of nearly 8% over the estimate of 34.75% which was estimated to be the case in 1998, and was largely attributable to the increase in life expectancy. This affects ALL pensions, not just the firefighters. Who do they expect to fund this? The pot of money isn't limitless. Mopardave, I respect the work you do, as do we all. But when you say that when people sign up to something, it "really should be honoured", does that extend to the agreement which the firefighters union decided to ignore in April, once it was triggered?
Edit:
Anyway.. change!
Armed forces leaders the best in Britain at managing change
Under the pension arrangements of 2004, a firefighter with just 25 years' or more service could retire at age 50 with no actuarial reduction. A full pension was also paid to anyone with 30 years service and anyone who retired before "April 2013 aged 50 or older with 25 or more years service" was to be considered exempt from this change. So this isn't change that has been done on the hoof. This was planned as far back as 1992, and these changes were cemented and agreed as recently as 2004. It seems that despite accepting the changes then, now that the trigger has passed (April) the firefighters union is now simply wanting to have its cake and eat it. Political agenda, anyone?
Many people bang on about the government being to blame.. but the cost at stake here dwarfs any political skullduggery. Has anyone considered the biggest change - greater life expectancy? The cost of the existing firefighters scheme in 2004 was 37.5% of pensionable pay over a typical career. This represented an increase (erm, 'change') of nearly 8% over the estimate of 34.75% which was estimated to be the case in 1998, and was largely attributable to the increase in life expectancy. This affects ALL pensions, not just the firefighters. Who do they expect to fund this? The pot of money isn't limitless. Mopardave, I respect the work you do, as do we all. But when you say that when people sign up to something, it "really should be honoured", does that extend to the agreement which the firefighters union decided to ignore in April, once it was triggered?
Edit:
Anyway.. change!
Armed forces leaders the best in Britain at managing change
Last edited by Al R; 17th Sep 2013 at 22:43.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right mate.
Given that much of the developed world went down the toilet financially it's hard to see that we can blame our politicians especially for doing what everyone else's commissars were up to anyhow - but on principle I think politicians ought to be kicked anyway.
Hitting the public sector pay, conditions and pensions has been an easy fix for the government, and as has been pointed out when the private sector booms again the public sector won't enjoy a similar upswing in fortunes.
What I will NEVER understand is how, when the focus of attention moves from one group to another, eg from hammering the troops to having a pop at the CS, or nurses, teachers (!), firemen, whoever stops being whipped joins in to condemn the new target group.
I doubt the strike will have any effect, but good luck.
Dave
Given that much of the developed world went down the toilet financially it's hard to see that we can blame our politicians especially for doing what everyone else's commissars were up to anyhow - but on principle I think politicians ought to be kicked anyway.
Hitting the public sector pay, conditions and pensions has been an easy fix for the government, and as has been pointed out when the private sector booms again the public sector won't enjoy a similar upswing in fortunes.
What I will NEVER understand is how, when the focus of attention moves from one group to another, eg from hammering the troops to having a pop at the CS, or nurses, teachers (!), firemen, whoever stops being whipped joins in to condemn the new target group.
I doubt the strike will have any effect, but good luck.
Dave
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the link Al R, a true enlightenment. Clearly Orion Partners, a management consultancy, know their stuff and probably explains why the MoD is stuffed full of the chiselling buggers. If there were prizes for expanding little substance into many words, they must be near the top. Remind me how the big badge head sheds have saved us from remaining a credible 1st rate military Nation.
Sorry, I have to agree that an agreement is an agreement, no matter how artificially generously it was made. Change it for the not yet ins by all means; they have a choice. The poor buggers that served to the promise don't.
Sorry, I have to agree that an agreement is an agreement, no matter how artificially generously it was made. Change it for the not yet ins by all means; they have a choice. The poor buggers that served to the promise don't.
Thanks for that davejb.
Al R.......not sure what the improvements to the pension were.....they must have passed me by. It would appear that you are some kind of financial advisor so your grasp of pension law is better than mine.....but I suspect my insight into the day to day realities of being a firefighter are better than yours. I agree.....some things have to change.......you're pushing at an open door. What I don't like is when those that pay into the system are the first to get kicked.....whether they are soldiers, firefighters, nurses.........whoever. I am aware that anomalies exist with forces pensions.......and that's not right. It was fine back in the eighties, when our pension scheme was in surplus, for local authorities to build schools and roads with the money.......but now that things aren't so good, let's look for an easy target eh. I think anyone who signed up to a pension arrangement should have it honoured.......otherwise it's not worth the paper it's written on. I, personally am at odds with the FBU.......whilst I'm a member, I'm not really a unionist.......agreed, there has to be change.....but you cannot seriously deny that this and previous governments have squandered, and continue to squander countless billions.....so shall we just forget about that? Change needs to come at all levels. Some of us are well aware we have a good job......not a particularly well paid one, but it's one I love. I would also love for those that knock us, to come and see what happens when we get our nastier jobs. And before you say it, I know my job doesn't compare to that of a young squaddie who's seeing his mates blown to bits and it is a national disgrace that our armed forces personnel are treated the way they are........my son is a former Royal Engineer.....so it's not me that has to change.......it's the shameful politicians that have squandered this countries wealth.
Al R.......not sure what the improvements to the pension were.....they must have passed me by. It would appear that you are some kind of financial advisor so your grasp of pension law is better than mine.....but I suspect my insight into the day to day realities of being a firefighter are better than yours. I agree.....some things have to change.......you're pushing at an open door. What I don't like is when those that pay into the system are the first to get kicked.....whether they are soldiers, firefighters, nurses.........whoever. I am aware that anomalies exist with forces pensions.......and that's not right. It was fine back in the eighties, when our pension scheme was in surplus, for local authorities to build schools and roads with the money.......but now that things aren't so good, let's look for an easy target eh. I think anyone who signed up to a pension arrangement should have it honoured.......otherwise it's not worth the paper it's written on. I, personally am at odds with the FBU.......whilst I'm a member, I'm not really a unionist.......agreed, there has to be change.....but you cannot seriously deny that this and previous governments have squandered, and continue to squander countless billions.....so shall we just forget about that? Change needs to come at all levels. Some of us are well aware we have a good job......not a particularly well paid one, but it's one I love. I would also love for those that knock us, to come and see what happens when we get our nastier jobs. And before you say it, I know my job doesn't compare to that of a young squaddie who's seeing his mates blown to bits and it is a national disgrace that our armed forces personnel are treated the way they are........my son is a former Royal Engineer.....so it's not me that has to change.......it's the shameful politicians that have squandered this countries wealth.
Maybe Al R needs to look elsewhere for his scapegoats?
The "what about the..." argument isn't the issue here. Just because we of the Armed Forces are having our pension arrangements systematically erroded doesn't mean it's right. And it is certaily not an argument for doing it to anyone else. Yes, the story behind each case is to be considered, but "we're getting stuffed and we can't do anything about it" doesn't make right for others to suffer the same fate.
By all means offer new conditions and pensions to people joining today, but taking pension rights away from those that have already been earning them... ...sorry, it's not right.
These are people that have earned their pensions through good service - either saving lives or defending our freedom (just two examples, I know). Let's spend more money on giving money, houses, education, healthcare and human rights to people that have never contributed anything to the country instead. Really?
By all means offer new conditions and pensions to people joining today, but taking pension rights away from those that have already been earning them... ...sorry, it's not right.
These are people that have earned their pensions through good service - either saving lives or defending our freedom (just two examples, I know). Let's spend more money on giving money, houses, education, healthcare and human rights to people that have never contributed anything to the country instead. Really?
Mopardave
Unfortunately, those that voted for Industrial Action fell straight into the trap set by the socialist left that runs the union. The union will now use it against the nasty centre-right Coalition Govt and the firemen that voted yes will be trapped in the middle.
Do the 46% that bothered to vote 'yes' (of which they had 78% of the cast vote) have my respect? - no. Do firefighters in general have my respect for their chosen profession? - yes, of course they do.
As for others saying "at least they stand up to the government" - well the military don't have that option; it's either put up, shove off or try not to turn up to work and go to prison! (alright, a little over simplified).
I don't like the fact that all of our public sector and state pensions are going to the right in age, I don't like the fact that loads of taxpayers cash gets spent on international aid/doley bums/international health tourists/european buffoonary/public sector red-tape/etc...etc... But striking about it is an outmoded and unhelpful act in my opinion - gone are the days of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
Sadly, I fear we're seeing the end of the Fire Service as we know it - this will give the ConDems all the ammunition that they need to slay this 46 headed beast. As I said before, the 46% have just played into the hands of the great left/right divide and I fear that they will reap what they sowed.
B Word
Unfortunately, those that voted for Industrial Action fell straight into the trap set by the socialist left that runs the union. The union will now use it against the nasty centre-right Coalition Govt and the firemen that voted yes will be trapped in the middle.
Do the 46% that bothered to vote 'yes' (of which they had 78% of the cast vote) have my respect? - no. Do firefighters in general have my respect for their chosen profession? - yes, of course they do.
As for others saying "at least they stand up to the government" - well the military don't have that option; it's either put up, shove off or try not to turn up to work and go to prison! (alright, a little over simplified).
I don't like the fact that all of our public sector and state pensions are going to the right in age, I don't like the fact that loads of taxpayers cash gets spent on international aid/doley bums/international health tourists/european buffoonary/public sector red-tape/etc...etc... But striking about it is an outmoded and unhelpful act in my opinion - gone are the days of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
Sadly, I fear we're seeing the end of the Fire Service as we know it - this will give the ConDems all the ammunition that they need to slay this 46 headed beast. As I said before, the 46% have just played into the hands of the great left/right divide and I fear that they will reap what they sowed.
B Word