[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/2...etirement-ends

[arista]

yes its Wrong

[Toy Soldier]

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 )

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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 )

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.]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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

Youtube video

[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.

[Toy Soldier]

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?