Firefighters on strike today

[Kizzy]

Just in case you didn't know....

'Firefighters in England and Wales are on a 24-hour strike amid demands for the government to take part in a national televised debate on pensions and the retirement age.

Members of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) in England and Wales are on strike for 24 hours until 9am on Friday, the longest stoppage in their three-year campaign against changes to their pensions.

The action coincides with the start of the World Cup, which has led fire chiefs to urge people not to cook late-night meals after watching football on the TV for fear of starting fires in the kitchen.'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/12/firefighter-strike-union-pensions-retirement-ends

[arista]

yes its Wrong

[user104658]

If anyone dies as a result of this strike action, the union bosses who organised it should be jailed for murder. Simple as that.

[Kizzy]

Would you want to be running into burning buildings into your 60's?

[arista]

Would you want to be running into burning buildings into your 60's?


Because you gear protects you

[Niamh.]

Unless you're an officer 60 is a ridiculous age to keep firefighters on till, it's a disgrace

[user104658]

Would you want to be running into burning buildings into your 60's?

Unless you're an officer 60 is a ridiculous age to keep firefighters on till, it's a disgrace

I don't think anyone is arguing that they're wrong to have a problem with the pensions proposals, however, if you commit to a career where there's an expectation that you're available to protect people and save lives... then strike action is completely inappropriate. They need to find a way to make their point that doesn't involve potentially endangering the lives of innocent people.

Like I said - IF anyone dies as a result of this strike (firefighters not being available to attend a fire when they otherwise would have been) - then the strike organisers should be held accountable and charged with murder.

[Niamh.]

I don't think anyone is arguing that they're wrong to have a problem with the pensions proposals, however, if you commit to a career where there's an expectation that you're available to protect people and save lives... then strike action is completely inappropriate. They need to find a way to make their point that doesn't involve potentially endangering the lives of innocent people.

Like I said - IF anyone dies as a result of this strike (firefighters not being available to attend a fire when they otherwise would have been) - then the strike organisers should be held accountable and charged with murder.

What other way is there to make their point though? Talking about it obviously hasn't gotten them very far.

[user104658]

What other way is there to make their point though? Talking about it obviously hasn't gotten them very far.

If there isn't another way to make their point (although I'm sure there must be, with a little imagination) then I'm still not seeing how it's justified.

Put it this way - create a plausible scenario... firefighters are on strike. A 3 bedroom house is on fire. No one turns up or, at least, there's a significant delay... and as a result, three children burn to death. How is that justifiable? For any reason? Who would be held accountable? "Sorry about your kids, guys... yes we could have come and put out the fire but y'know... government's being a dick about our retirement".

I wouldn't accept it. I can't imagine anyone who would. These are people who CHOSE to become firefighters, presumably, with some desire to help people and save lives. They could have chosen a career path that didn't hold that sort of responsibility and held strike action as much as they wanted.

I don't know. All I can say is, if I was a firefighter, and a fire claimed a life in my coverage area while I was on strike, I would feel personally responsible for allowing that to happen.

[Kizzy]

Would you really think that people in this profession would make a decision to take strike action lightly? It has been under negotiation for months and there has been no resolution.
These are people in public service... Not public servants expected to run in and out of burning buildings till they drop dead.
Of course public safety is paramount but why are the government not ensuring safeguards on pensions are set in stone for first responders?

[Livia]

The Fire Brigade don't have any problem with going on strike, it seems. Which surprises me. I really hope one of their own houses doesn't catch light today. And if the strikes continue, who are they going to call in? Our seriously depleted army won't be helping and with more redundancies for the armed forces and a failure to recruit TA soldiers, they won't be an option for a while. Of course, they won't be going on strike.

[Niamh.]

If there isn't another way to make their point (although I'm sure there must be, with a little imagination) then I'm still not seeing how it's justified.

Put it this way - create a plausible scenario... firefighters are on strike. A 3 bedroom house is on fire. No one turns up or, at least, there's a significant delay... and as a result, three children burn to death. How is that justifiable? For any reason? Who would be held accountable? "Sorry about your kids, guys... yes we could have come and put out the fire but y'know... government's being a dick about our retirement".

I wouldn't accept it. I can't imagine anyone who would. These are people who CHOSE to become firefighters, presumably, with some desire to help people and save lives. They could have chosen a career path that didn't hold that sort of responsibility and held strike action as much as they wanted.

I don't know. All I can say is, if I was a firefighter, and a fire claimed a life in my coverage area while I was on strike, I would feel personally responsible for allowing that to happen.

I would blame the Government for letting it get to this point. It's actually endangering the public, the firefighter and the firefighters team by making people who are too old to be doing that job continue to do it.

[Niamh.]

The Fire Brigade don't have any problem with going on strike, it seems. Which surprises me. I really hope one of their own houses doesn't catch light today. And if the strikes continue, who are they going to call in? Our seriously depleted army won't be helping and with more redundancies for the armed forces and a failure to recruit TA soldiers, they won't be an option for a while. Of course, they won't be going on strike.

I don't think it's helpful to vilify the fire fighters for something the government and their ridiculous law is causing, it's not like their money is fantastic either (over here anyway not sure about your fire service) /not biased at all cos Gav is a fire fighter :p )

[Livia]

I don't think it's helpful to vilify the fire fighters for something the government and their ridiculous law is causing, it's not like their money is fantastic either (over here anyway not sure about your fire service) /not biased at all cos Gav is a fire fighter :p )

Yes, I know your Gav's a firefighter. I have massive respect for the emergency services who are generally underpaid and undervalued. My father, when he left the army, was a parademic, working shifts for crap pay, saving people's lives. He never went on strike and he never would. It's not their cause I disagree with, it's striking. It's an archaic method of making your point that alienates their biggest supporters - the public. What they need is to get the public behind them. Asking people to do that particular job into their sixties is ridiculous. But I don't think going on strike is the answer.

[Kizzy]

It's unfair to say they don't have a problem with it and is an unwarranted accusation.
They have been in negotiation for months strike action is a last resort.

[Niamh.]

Yes, I know your Gav's a firefighter. I have massive respect for the emergency services who are generally underpaid and undervalued. My father, when he left the army, was a parademic, working shifts for crap pay, saving people's lives. He never went on strike and he never would. It's not their cause I disagree with, it's striking. It's an archaic method of making your point that alienates their biggest supporters - the public. What they need is to get the public behind them. Asking people to do that particular job into their sixties is ridiculous. But I don't think going on strike is the answer.

I just don't think it's a decision that they would have taken lightly, not at all, unless they felt like they had no other option or way of being heard. There was one time here when there was talk of strike (it never happened in the end) but they still had plans to keep some firefighters on call

[Nedusa]

Funny how this story has not really made it onto the News, ordinarily this would be a fairly major news item.

Wonder if there is a reason this story is not getting the media coverage a story like this would normally get.





.

[Kizzy]

God forbid they would get any public support!
It's the same across all 999 sevices.

[joeysteele]

Sadly because of the Govts stubbornness on these issues,what are the firefighters to do, how can they get notice taken and compromises made if they are not being listened to as to their grievances and needs.

The arrogance of the govt. on this issue is beyond belief and if they will not listen and reasonably take on board the concerns of the firefighters, then really what else can the firefighters do other than force notice to be taken of them.

I don't like strikes,in the modern world those in power over the working population and those who are the working population, should be able to get round a table and work all hours they can to reach agreement.
If the govt. in power is dismissive,like this one is, and is not prepared to listen then I reluctantly say the firefighters are right to strike in that instance.

The firefighters will not have taken that decision lightly and are likely to always be willing to try to talk things through,however they likely are really sick now of just always being talked 'at' rather then being talked 'to' by the govt.

[AnnieK]

Sadly because of the Govts stubbornness on these issues,what are the firefighters to do, how can they get notice taken and compromises made if they are not being listened to as to their grievances and needs.

The arrogance of the govt. on this issue is beyond belief and if they will not listen and reasonably take on board the concerns of the firefighters, then really what else can the firefighters do other than force notice to be taken of them.

I don't like strikes,in the modern world those in power over the working population and those who are the working population, should be able to get round a table and work all hours they can to reach agreement.
If the govt. in power is dismissive,like this one is, and is not prepared to listen then I reluctantly say the firefighters are right to strike in that instance.

The firefighters will not have taken that decision lightly and are likely to always be willing to try to talk things through,however they likely are really sick now of just always being talked 'at' rather then being talked 'to' by the govt.

I agree with what you have said Joey but it is not just this government. The firefighters did strike under the previous government also.

[joeysteele]

I agree with what you have said Joey but it is not just this government. The firefighters did strike under the previous government also.

I agree that is why I just said 'the' govt and not 'this' govt. They haven't been listened to for a number of years now although at this time the patience does seem to have been stretched too far with the new changes.
Changes do have to made in all areas of work and things re-assessed often but the thing that has to be the main constituent of any changes is fairness and right.

The current changes actually are, in my view, not based on such constituents of fairness hence why we are at this point now unfortunately.
I myself I admit do,after careful reflection on the issues,stand with the firefighters as to this however.

[Kizzy]

It get's really tedious the harping back over the years to attempt to counter against what is happening in the here and now...
It's not a debate just throwing up some nonsensical statement that has little or nothing to do with the discussion as it stands.
There is no alternative, it's unfair to suggest that firefighters should put the public first and not expect the current government to do the same.
It's a knee jerk response to assume they enter into strike talks for selfish reasons, it is fo the benefit of public safety that firefighters are at optimum health and fitness physically and mentally.

Message from the FBU
z5Y92nuevPE

[AnnieK]

I assume your post is aimed at me Kizzy? I'm sorry you find my point tedious but I find it tedious that the current government can be slated for every little thing that is wrong with this country. I am actually in agreement with the firefighters but it is not a new issue. Striking hasn't solved it previously and will not solve it now. No government is ever going to bow down completely to strike action as then every service with a union with strike and the country will be on its knees. Negotiation is the only way....IMO.

[user104658]

Strike action by private sector workers sometimes work because the strike action causes the company to bleed turnover, and if it goes on long enough, could send them bust.

THIS strike action doesn't hit anyone in the pocket and, to be frank, simply will probably not achieve anything. In fact, I'd say if the government bows to it, they'll be setting a dangerous precedent.

I'm not arguing that 60 is an OK age to be expected to still do the job. I can appreciate that that in itself is probably dangerous (I don't want a 60 year old trying to haul me out of a burning building, to be honest). I just think that this strike action smells like fruitless desperation... It's putting elives at risk and will not change anything. On top of that it sends the wrong message to the public... The very people they should be appealing to for help.

The entire system is broken, EVERYONE is being ****ed over, public and private sectors... No one's future is even close to being secure any more. Anyone who expects to have any sort of retirement needs to be setting THEMSELVES up for that. Otherwise, we're all going to be working ourselves into the grave. It's that simple.

[Kizzy]

No not you in partic annie, the threads not about every little thing or past disputes from over 10yrs ago as that is irrelevant as to this current action.
Dangerous precident?... what by honoring the pensions that those paying in signed up to when they began their lifesaving career?
I'd worry more about what message it sends when the government can harness your retirement payments at will and hold you to ransom so you work till you drop in one of the most stressful demanding professions there is.
But THIS action doesn't affect many so it's easy to be blase about it and cast a critical eye over those who do a job that very few have the qualities needed to do.

Just try to imagine a private fire brigade, just for a second...... scary thought isn't it?

[user104658]

No not you in partic annie, the threads not about every little thing or past disputes from over 10yrs ago as that is irrelevant as to this current action.
Dangerous precident?... what by honoring the pensions that those paying in signed up to when they began their lifesaving career?
I'd worry more about what message it sends when the government can harness your retirement payments at will and hold you to ransom so you work till you drop in one of the most stressful demanding professions there is.
But THIS action doesn't affect many so it's easy to be blase about it and cast a critical eye over those who do a job that very few have the qualities needed to do.

Just try to imagine a private fire brigade, just for a second...... scary thought isn't it?

I think you're being sort of blind to the fact that NO ONE on this thread is applauding, defending or condoning the actions of the government or saying that it's in any way right, that it isn't a shambles... or that it doesn't need addressing. "Moving the goalposts" in any profession is something that seriously annoys me... the terms of the contract should be clear and fixed. If they want to change something, they can, but it should apply only to those signing up AFTER the change, who can then make an informed decision about whether or not they want to sign up.

Emergency services especially, it should be abundantly clear. A clear pensions structure, a clear retirement date set in stone upon starting employment, and on the flipside, a guarantee of NO strike action of any kind, ever.

I can fully appreciate that the government's actions regarding the fire service are going to mean that more lives are at risk in the long run. It needs to be fought against. There's no doubt about that. But strike action is outdated thinking... it's ineffective... and in the case of the emergency services, it's morally questionable.

[joeysteele]

I think you're being sort of blind to the fact that NO ONE on this thread is applauding, defending or condoning the actions of the government or saying that it's in any way right, that it isn't a shambles... or that it doesn't need addressing. "Moving the goalposts" in any profession is something that seriously annoys me... the terms of the contract should be clear and fixed. If they want to change something, they can, but it should apply only to those signing up AFTER the change, who can then make an informed decision about whether or not they want to sign up.

Emergency services especially, it should be abundantly clear. A clear pensions structure, a clear retirement date set in stone upon starting employment, and on the flipside, a guarantee of NO strike action of any kind, ever.

I can fully appreciate that the government's actions regarding the fire service are going to mean that more lives are at risk in the long run. It needs to be fought against. There's no doubt about that. But strike action is outdated thinking... it's ineffective... and in the case of the emergency services, it's morally questionable.

I agree with all that Toy Soldier and I usually do on your posts too.

I don't think strike action is a good way forward myself but I have to say, if the govt refuses to re-negotiate the contracts, if it dismisses your suggestions and unless you are going to agree with their new plans they don't even set up talks.
How can notice be brought to the problem and issues involved.This govt. on these new contracts are not in any way willing to compromise at all.

What then, in the light of that, other than strike, can the firefighters do.
I cannot think of anything, especially if the govt. keeps the door firmly closed and only wants to hear from you should be agreeing to all they want to do.

[Kizzy]

I think you're being sort of blind to the fact that NO ONE on this thread is applauding, defending or condoning the actions of the government or saying that it's in any way right, that it isn't a shambles... or that it doesn't need addressing. "Moving the goalposts" in any profession is something that seriously annoys me... the terms of the contract should be clear and fixed. If they want to change something, they can, but it should apply only to those signing up AFTER the change, who can then make an informed decision about whether or not they want to sign up.

Emergency services especially, it should be abundantly clear. A clear pensions structure, a clear retirement date set in stone upon starting employment, and on the flipside, a guarantee of NO strike action of any kind, ever.

I can fully appreciate that the government's actions regarding the fire service are going to mean that more lives are at risk in the long run. It needs to be fought against. There's no doubt about that. But strike action is outdated thinking... it's ineffective... and in the case of the emergency services, it's morally questionable.

I'm not being blind to anything, I see quite clearly the views of some that suggest striking should be out of the question but if there is no agreement reached then I can't see why action isn't expected frankly.
What is the use of having contracts of employment and employment law if organisations aren't able to guarantee the workforce a pension?
As there are currently no such safeguards in place to protect those in public service, they are well within their rights as is every other profession barring the police to consider strike action as a last resort during negotiations.

[Mystic Mock]

Unless you're an officer 60 is a ridiculous age to keep firefighters on till, it's a disgrace

Agreed, I would find it too hard now at 18, wtf would it be like if 60 year olds had to do the job? This Coalition is pure evil.

[joeysteele]

Agreed, I would find it too hard now at 18, wtf would it be like if 60 year olds had to do the job? This Coalition is pure evil.

This coalition for sure has little or no respect for the people who have to do these duties Mock, being dismissive,authoritarian and arrogant doesn't usually bring positive results,nor should it either.This lot have even had the Police against them as well as the firefighters

They just don't listen to the people that matter,in this case the firefighters or the people they are hurting too on a wider scale.
Hopefully not for much longer.

[Kizzy]

I feel that they would have more public support if they were a private organisation somehow, then there would be a corporate face to backlash against. As they are public sector workers nobody quite knows how to react and assumes (wrongly) that they must be acting fairly and with good judgement.

[user104658]

I agree with all that Toy Soldier and I usually do on your posts too.

I don't think strike action is a good way forward myself but I have to say, if the govt refuses to re-negotiate the contracts, if it dismisses your suggestions and unless you are going to agree with their new plans they don't even set up talks.
How can notice be brought to the problem and issues involved.This govt. on these new contracts are not in any way willing to compromise at all.

What then, in the light of that, other than strike, can the firefighters do.
I cannot think of anything, especially if the govt. keeps the door firmly closed and only wants to hear from you should be agreeing to all they want to do.

In an ideal world all that would be needed is promptly voting them out and making it clear that this is one of the reasons, and the next government being better. However, my faith in democracy is verging on non existent these days. I don't trust the public to have the common sense to vote this lot out, to not be duped by fiddled numbers relating to the economy and the illusions of inflated "employment" statistics... And even if they do, whilst I don't think they would initiate the same policies in the first place, I have little faith that any government that follows will reverse anything that has been done already and isn't overtly government related (e.g. Bedroom tax, MAYBE). They can get away with it in someone else's name.

SO, my second ideal world would be that a caring society should act on behalf of the emergency services. They go to work and protect us, as they do every day, and the rest of us strike / March / protest on their behalf.

But we won't. Because we're selfish. Meh... Maybe they SHOULD just let us burn?

[joeysteele]

In an ideal world all that would be needed is promptly voting them out and making it clear that this is one of the reasons, and the next government being better. However, my faith in democracy is verging on non existent these days. I don't trust the public to have the common sense to vote this lot out, to not be duped by fiddled numbers relating to the economy and the illusions of inflated "employment" statistics... And even if they do, whilst I don't think they would initiate the same policies in the first place, I have little faith that any government that follows will reverse anything that has been done already and isn't overtly government related (e.g. Bedroom tax, MAYBE). They can get away with it in someone else's name.

SO, my second ideal world would be that a caring society should act on behalf of the emergency services. They go to work and protect us, as they do every day, and the rest of us strike / March / protest on their behalf.

But we won't. Because we're selfish. Meh... Maybe they SHOULD just let us burn?

A really good post as always Toy Soldier, at this time at least I still hold a belief that the electorate will in fact send this govt. packing,since for me if any govt. deserves to lose any election, then this is the one for me.
It is just totally heartless and arrogant.

I also agree, and what a picture that would be, if masses of people who rely on the firefighters did take to the streets and march for the firefighters rather than them striking, that is a really good thought actually.
You would have this govt. and the media calling all the marchers,militant left wing extremists likely however.

Are my hopes as strong that a different govt. will be better,I cannot answer that with certainty.
What I believe is needed as to policy and dealing with workers, especially the firefighters and indeed the essential services who are not allowed to strike even, is compassion.
For the choice I will be making in 2015,I hope I am not disappointed again and that fairness and compassion is the order of the day in policy implementation by the next,different govt.
If it isn't,I will be as determined in my attacks on them as I have been on this govt. since 2012.

The system we have at present means that is the best we can wish for but I am more and more leaning to the view that this govt, has little of any political integrity or credibility left.
Coming from a usually strong Conservative background myself and being Conservative myself in 2009,(not able to vote then),what I have personally witnessed as to this govts. actions has changed my whole direction of politics.
Oddly enough those in my own family too, who are turning from this govt. number a great many too.

I do really like your image of the people marching for the firefighters however,it maybe wouldn't make a difference to this dismissive shower in now but it could send a message to who will take over.
We can hope I guess.

[Kizzy]

I'm just thankful there were no incidents during the strike action, if there had been you can bet it would have been spun in such a way as to suggest the blame lies with the firefighters totally absolving the grasping hands of the government body involved.

[joeysteele]

I'm just thankful there were no incidents during the strike action, if there had been you can bet it would have been spun in such a way as to suggest the blame lies with the firefighters totally absolving the grasping hands of the government body involved.

Absolutely, I was glad and 'relieved' as to that too.

[smudgie]

Perhaps the answer is to stagger the taking on of new firefighters, a quota per year, enough so that 'desk jobs' can be done by the older and not so fit ones in their later years.

Might sound a bit idealistic, but then there is no easy answer.

One thing is for sure,this country can not afford a work force that retired at 50 and now 55 .
Okay when we popped off at 70 ish maybe, but we are all expected to live so much longer now.

[Kizzy]

Perhaps the answer is to stagger the taking on of new firefighters, a quota per year, enough so that 'desk jobs' can be done by the older and not so fit ones in their later years.

Might sound a bit idealistic, but then there is no easy answer.

One thing is for sure,this country can not afford a work force that retired at 50 and now 55 .
Okay when we popped off at 70 ish maybe, but we are all expected to live so much longer now.

They retire at 55 at the moment, what desk jobs do you suggest people who run into burning buildings for a living do?
Will they be on the same salary to carry out these admin positions?

[Livia]

Perhaps the answer is to stagger the taking on of new firefighters, a quota per year, enough so that 'desk jobs' can be done by the older and not so fit ones in their later years.

Might sound a bit idealistic, but then there is no easy answer.

One thing is for sure,this country can not afford a work force that retired at 50 and now 55 .
Okay when we popped off at 70 ish maybe, but we are all expected to live so much longer now.

That's a good point, Smudgie. The population is aging, we're all living longer, nowhere near enough people have an adequate pension... I'm not sure where the money's supposed to come from to cover all this, it just isn't sustainable. 55 used to be "old" but it isn't any more. Rushing into burning buildings is only a fraction of the job firefighters do, so I don't see why they can't be required to work longer and maybe the older staff could concentrate less on the "frontline" jobs and leave the rushing into burning buildings to the younger firefighters. Although I'm sure the union wouldn't agree...

Good job no one died while they were on strike. If they had the union would probably take the stance of the kidnapper, killing the hostage and blaming someone else because they didn't pay the ransom.

[joeysteele]

With absolute respect for all opposing opinions to mine.
It is easy to say people are living longer so they should 'have' to work longer, that is fine in some professions.
To 'force' people to do dangerous jobs particularly or even heavy manual jobs when 60 or over is in my opinion a pretty hard line to take.

Someone of 60 obviously has some limitations that a 50 year old won't have.
Why do we have a Country as rich as ours that cannot provide for people over 65,most of whom likely have worked all their lives.
Especially when we can find funds for all sorts of unnecessary reforms of this and that, foreign aid and wars.

What arrogance it seems to me anyway for it to be said by those in power who 'don't' and never would or likely could do the jobs, to say to people of 60 that they 'must' do the jobs they have been doing while younger no matter what that job entails as to strength and stress and mental agility too.

My lord, what kind of country is the UK becoming.

[Niamh.]

They retire at 55 at the moment, what desk jobs do you suggest people who run into burning buildings for a living do?
Will they be on the same salary to carry out these admin positions?

I suppose they could use them as trainers for recruits courses, BA training etc

[Kizzy]

55 is old enough to retire as an active firefighter and they do pay into the pension too...
my fear is those at 55 could be moved and then be at risk of redundancy.
There are BA lecturers already though, the only thing being held to ransom here are the firefighters, as bureaucrats try to whip their pensions fro them that they earn't doing an incredibly hard stressful job.... they're not pencil pushers are they? in my view they earn their retirement at 55.

[joeysteele]

55 is old enough to retire as an active firefighter and they do pay into the pension too...
my fear is those at 55 could be moved and then be at risk of redundancy.
There are BA lecturers already though, the only thing being held to ransom here are the firefighters, as bureaucrats try to whip their pensions fro them that they earn't doing an incredibly hard stressful job.... they're not pencil pushers are they? in my view they earn their retirement at 55.

The point is Kizzy, this govt. moved the goalposts on already agreed contracts as to the firefighters.
That should never be the case in my view or be allowed.

[user104658]

Perhaps the answer is to stagger the taking on of new firefighters, a quota per year, enough so that 'desk jobs' can be done by the older and not so fit ones in their later years.

Might sound a bit idealistic, but then there is no easy answer.

One thing is for sure,this country can not afford a work force that retired at 50 and now 55 .
Okay when we popped off at 70 ish maybe, but we are all expected to live so much longer now.

The problem with that is that youth doesn't scale with lifespan. People are living to be older due to medical interventions that extend their final years, but a 65 year old now is no more physically fit than a 65 year old 20 or 30 years ago. So what you're describing is a situation where people work until they are too frail to do anything else. Or just end up "popping off" early because they're working harder than their body is able, and masking the symptoms with aforementioned medications.

If anything, the problem is that we're living too long. If they could find a way to keep people YOUTHFUL - not just ALIVE - for longer, then great, everyone could work for longer... but like I said, that's not what's happening.

[smudgie]

They retire at 55 at the moment, what desk jobs do you suggest people who run into burning buildings for a living do?
Will they be on the same salary to carry out these admin positions?

My best friends husband went into schools, to talk about fires, something to do with prevention.
He done that for the two years before he retired.
And yes, he still got his same salary, and his full pension at 50.

[Kizzy]

Then he may have been injured? that would've prevented him from actually fighting fires, it does happen in that line of work. There may be an option to retire at 50 if there is a medical need.

[joeysteele]

The problem with that is that youth doesn't scale with lifespan. People are living to be older due to medical interventions that extend their final years, but a 65 year old now is no more physically fit than a 65 year old 20 or 30 years ago. So what you're describing is a situation where people work until they are too frail to do anything else. Or just end up "popping off" early because they're working harder than their body is able, and masking the symptoms with aforementioned medications.

If anything, the problem is that we're living too long. If they could find a way to keep people YOUTHFUL - not just ALIVE - for longer, then great, everyone could work for longer... but like I said, that's not what's happening.

Honestly Toy Soldier, brilliant post and fantastic the points you make.

A post I really wish I had made,so fair and so right too. I agree 100% with every single word.Really well said.

[smudgie]

Then he may have been injured? that would've prevented him from actually fighting fires, it does happen in that line of work. There may be an option to retire at 50 if there is a medical need.

No, he was not injured.
It is cost effective to teach he little darlings the dangers of lighting fires rather than having to put them out.
He was a normal serving firefighter until he got the position in the schools.
He had the full option to retire at 50 as his contract was signed at the right time.
No medical needs required.

[Kizzy]

Well I don't know the circs there obviously but I'm sure if he chose to take a different role then his pay and such may have reflected that. It could have been a mental health issue or any number of things.
Maybe there was the option to retire after 25yrs service then?

[smudgie]

The problem with that is that youth doesn't scale with lifespan. People are living to be older due to medical interventions that extend their final years, but a 65 year old now is no more physically fit than a 65 year old 20 or 30 years ago. So what you're describing is a situation where people work until they are too frail to do anything else. Or just end up "popping off" early because they're working harder than their body is able, and masking the symptoms with aforementioned medications.

If anything, the problem is that we're living too long. If they could find a way to keep people YOUTHFUL - not just ALIVE - for longer, then great, everyone could work for longer... but like I said, that's not what's happening.

What I am describing is far from people working until they are too old and frail.
Men in this country have worked up until pension age of 65 for over the 20/30 years you mentioned. Women too come to think of it.
In fact some are fit enough not to pack in until years later.
I was suggesting the firefighters could be saved from the physical side of it at their normal pension age of 50/55 then carry on doing desk work, training, fire prevention etc for the few years to their new actual pension age of 60 that has been suggested.
Not rocket science, maybe not even the answer, but a suggestion, heaven knows something has to be done to sort it out.

[smudgie]

Well I don't know the circs there obviously but I'm sure if he chose to take a different role then his pay and such may have reflected that. It could have been a mental health issue or any number of things.
Maybe there was the option to retire after 25yrs service then?

Kizzy, he was/is fit as a fiddle, he was allowed to retire at 50 as he was fortunate enough to have the right contract.
The fire prevention job was advertised internally and he was lucky enough to get it.
He was paid his full pay until he retired on his full pension.
Now as to how many areas provide this service in schools I have no idea. But I can't see it being a one off.
He is happy as Larry now with his pension..and a new job.
His only whinge is he has to pay tax on his full new wage:laugh:

[Kizzy]

But why should they..... My point is if they have worked for 25 or 30yrs in service to the public in this role that I don't think many take the time to grasp the magnitude of, or how valuable these men and women are in our society then why can they not retire at 55?
The benchmark of 60 is all well and good but when you take into account the physical and mental pressure this role requires then I cannot understand why it is not seen as acceptable to allow them time to carry on.

Look at army pensions and how they compare...
When you join the Armed Forces, you will automatically be enrolled into the scheme - and you won't be asked to pay a penny
After two years of Regular service you'll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65
Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension linked to their final salary, a tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army and a second lump sum when they turn 65
The pension scheme will change on 1 April 2015 and from this date Reserve Forces will also be automatically enrolled'

That's whether you have seen active service or not...

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20101.aspx


The current Armed Forces pension scheme has two main sections, for those who joined between 1975 and 2005 and those who joined afterwards.

In both cases the normal pension age is 55.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said that only 2% of those who serve in the Armed Forces do so until that age.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19070222

[Kizzy]

Kizzy, he was/is fit as a fiddle, he was allowed to retire at 50 as he was fortunate enough to have the right contract.
The fire prevention job was advertised internally and he was lucky enough to get it.
He was paid his full pay until he retired on his full pension.
Now as to how many areas provide this service in schools I have no idea. But I can't see it being a one off.
He is happy as Larry now with his pension..and a new job.
His only whinge is he has to pay tax on his full new wage:laugh:

There aren't enough fire prevention jobs for every firefighter over 55 is my guess, the are able to still 'retire' from service but the pension will not be payable till they reach 60.

[Livia]

The army has been cut to the bone by this government. I don't see a whiney thread about that... and like the police the army isn't allowed to strike. The army has absolutely ****-all to do with this thread or this topic.

[Kizzy]

Don't insult me please, it's relevant due to to the shared issue of having their pension age moved recently by this government, yes they have been cut to the bone; I didn't say it was right... but they are the provisos for pensions for them.
The firefighters are in a position to have a body who can negotiate terms, it's not a disgrace they do, it's a disgrace the police and the army don't.
Note though the discrepancies, full pension following 18yrs service, there are no pension contributions at all.
I would never suggest that one service is more deserving than another, the government however have I feel devalued the work the fire service do due to this treatment.

[Livia]

Oh Kizzy, for someone so rude, you're so sensitive!

You chose the army. I wonder why...? Why not the police? The Police can retire at 55 and do retire at 60, much earlier than civvies and the police had a body to fight for them. The army has no relevance on this topic at all but you drag them in. You have all day long to Google this stuff, I'm surprised you don't put up a better argument.

[Kizzy]

I'm not being drawn out here livia, if you don't want to debate the topic you don't have to comment.
There's no need to read into my posts things that aren't there.

[Livia]

Is that so.

[Kizzy]

"Before 2010, firefighters already contributed one of the highest proportions of their salary towards their pensions (11%), and in April this increased for the third year running.

"Firefighters typically now pay over £4,000 a year from a £29,000 salary, and the government has announced they will impose further increases in 2015," said the union.

The FBU said increasing numbers of its members were considering leaving the pension scheme as a result of its decreasing affordability, posing difficult questions over its sustainability.

Under the government's proposals, firefighters who are forced to retire before the age of 60 as a result of ageing will have half of their pension taken away, according to the FBU.

The fact that they are contributing annually shows this is not free money they receive as a pension is it? If during service between 55 and 60 they are injured then they are no longer entitled to a full pension... is that right or fair?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/05/firefighters-two-strikes-dispute-government-pensions

[Cherie]

The army has been cut to the bone by this government. I don't see a whiney thread about that... and like the police the army isn't allowed to strike. The army has absolutely ****-all to do with this thread or this topic.


You could start one if you feel strongly about it I suppose :shrug:

Making a thread about a current news topic can hardly be described as "whiney".

[joeysteele]

I think whether it is the Armed forces, the Police or the firefighters,this pathetic excuse for a government has simply made an almighty mess of virtually all of its dealings and plans for them too.
As I mentioned in a previous post,in dealings with special services particularly but indeed with everyone, being dismissive,authoritarian and arrogant is not ever,in all probability,going to bring positive results.

I think what this government has done as to the armed forces borders on betrayal of them and the obscene,despite the warnings from those in the know they just dismiss it all as they do with the firefighters too.

[Kizzy]

How I think it will play out, it's how it's playing out for other uniformed services...

1They change the pension age then announce 'redundancies'
2 the staff on the contracts with the lower pension age are removed affecting their pension
3 there is a recruitment drive.

[user104658]

How I think it will play out, it's how it's playing out for other uniformed services...

1They change the pension age then announce 'redundancies'
2 the staff on the contracts with the lower pension age are removed affecting their pension
3 there is a recruitment drive.

You can't fill a position that's been made redundant (legally)... The position MUST cease to exist. If you're made "redundant" and then someone is hired in your place then you're pretty much guaranteed a large amount of compensation if you take the organisation to court. I have a friend who faced this recently, they made her redundant when she became pregnant presumably to avoid maternity pay - but then immediately hired a replacement. They ended up having to pay her full maternity pay plus a year's salary as a lump sum.

Although, it's the government, they usually don't bother playing by their own rules.

[user104658]

The FBU said increasing numbers of its members were considering leaving the pension scheme as a result of its decreasing affordability, posing difficult questions over its sustainability.

Hold on a second... I was under the impression that these pension contributions were voluntary! This sort of changes the situation from my perspective... Workplace based pension schemes are crap. All of them are crap! No one should have one if at all optional - TAKE that money and use it specifically to ensure that you're set up for retirement. Private pension schemes are better... Or if you're not thick... Simply investing well for yourself is better.

Build your own retirement fund and then retire whenever you feel like you're set to do so.

That is the solution here. They should tell them to jam their pensions scheme up their arse, invest £4000 a year for themselves, and retire whenever they feel like it.

This may be over simplistic based on the fact that most people have little to zero knowledge of how to conduct their own finances properly and would like a simple work based solution but... Well... It does erode my sympathy slightly.

[Kizzy]

995 army personnel were made redundant recently, yet they are recruiting on the streets of Leeds.. It may be coincidence, who knows. Not really for discussion in this thread I guess.
Not sure what your sympathetic stance is or was but as with many employers you have the option to contribute to your pension, as it's the government you would've expected them not to fleece them... seems not, so yes they are leaving to secure their own pensions by the looks of things.

[smudgie]

Hold on a second... I was under the impression that these pension contributions were voluntary! This sort of changes the situation from my perspective... Workplace based pension schemes are crap. All of them are crap! No one should have one if at all optional - TAKE that money and use it specifically to ensure that you're set up for retirement. Private pension schemes are better... Or if you're not thick... Simply investing well for yourself is better.

Build your own retirement fund and then retire whenever you feel like you're set to do so.

That is the solution here. They should tell them to jam their pensions scheme up their arse, invest £4000 a year for themselves, and retire whenever they feel like it.

This may be over simplistic based on the fact that most people have little to zero knowledge of how to conduct their own finances properly and would like a simple work based solution but... Well... It does erode my sympathy slightly.

I can see your point here, the only problem being, as of now their employers are paying nigh on double the same amount into the scheme for them.
Anyone not on a final salary pension would however do very well to sort out their own pension finances, with the aid of a decent financial advisor if need be.

[Kizzy]

So it's a way of getting more for their money... By compromising the safety of serving firefighters?