Viewing Thread:
"Fire fighter's strike - For or Against?"

Personally, I'm in favour of it. These guys put their lives on the line day after day, and they deserve a decent salary for doing it. It must really grate that some footballers get more than double their annual salary in a week, all for kicking a ball around for a maximum of three hours a week.

40% may seem high, but considering they'll probably only get half that (if anything), then it's fair play. They always say you should ask for double what you actually want!

I appreciate that a strike may put lives at risk, but that's something held over them by government - and if they don't strike, they'll continue getting screwed.

Hmm... I haven't posted in this thread before, for some reason or other. :-)

Anyway, my view on it all is that the firemen should get that 40% pay rise - as many people have said, day in and day out they are putting their lives on the line for all of us, doing their best to put out as many fires as possible and save as many lives as they can. They deserve what they're asking for.

But there's one problem to do with that though. If firemen get this pay rise after this strike, then many other unions will start to go on strike too - believing that they can get a pay rise too. Medical staff could go on strike, endangering many lives. There could be other strikes too, and it isn't good for the country.

Problems on either side of the matter - it's a tough one, but I'd probably say that the firemen should get the pay rise.

Blank wrote:
> Why not get the army in full time instead? That'll teach 'em not to
> strike.

1) The army is overstretched and cannot permenantly spare 19 000 troops, nor can the RAF either. Even if there is no action in the Gulf troops need to be located into the region just in case - if only to back the UN mission with a show of force.

2) The job of the army is to defend, not fight fires.

3) Doing so would mean a hell of a lot of firefighters being sacked. Sack them all, and watch every other union go on strike. With no transport, limited policing, limited medical care e.t.c. the country would soon have more to worry about than funding a paltry 200 million shortfall....

~~Belldandy~~

Why not get the army in full time instead? That'll teach 'em not to strike.

Tony wrote:
> I wonder how they get time off from their second jobs to stand on
> picket lines?

---

They go during shift-times.

Blank wrote:
> I'm pretty sure they do, although I may be wrong.

Strike action is a union activity, and union activities are chargeable time. This is law last time I looked. May not count for government employees, but I should think it would do.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> Rosalind wrote:
> Do the firefighters lose pay when they are striking?
>
> No.

I'm pretty sure they do, although I may be wrong.

Rosalind wrote:
> Do the firefighters lose pay when they are striking?

No.

Well they certainly don't gain any.

Or do they...

Do the firefighters lose pay when they are striking?

Council tax is gay.

And so are firefighters.

Their girly little union hasn't replied to my mails, clearly because they acknowledge that their actions are composed almost entirely of folly.