[user104658]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 But strike action is outdated thinking...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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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