Firefighters on strike today
 

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/2...etirement-ends

yes its Wrong

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

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

Because you gear protects you

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.





.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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