Viewing Thread:
"Fire Strike - Vote Here"

Fact: It's not difficult to recruit Firemen. If they were given a big pay rise then that would be a cue for everybody else too. Taxes would rise dramatically and the economy would melt down. We would all be worse off.

I have two suggestions:

1. Train the armed forces to use up to date fire-fighting equipment and make it illegal for anybody to prevent the use of such equipment.

2. As Firemen have nothing to do except play darts for half their time, why not give them some more work. They could be the town watchers, pouring over cctv monitors to watch for traffic jams, fires and rowdy elements of society, and simply reporting events to the Police as necessary. That could be worth 5% on their pay. Of course they might have to be banned from doing second jobs during the day if they have to stay awake all night watching monitors.

These are exceptionally good and logical ideas. Maybe I should be a Governement adviser.

*_*

Also, it's good to see, that when needed, some firemen have realised that someones life may be in danger, an innocent victim, and they have participated in the rescue of people trapped in fires and have assisted the Army. Good to see they put the money aside for someones life, a rare thing nowadyas. (not necessarily someones life but I think you get my point)

What I reckon will happen...

The guy in charge of the Firemen union is asking for 40%. Most firemen realise they'll never get that, and want a more realistic raise. The government offer 4%. The government know the unions will never settle for that.

So as I see it both parties are kind of bartering... The firemen are demanding a high price knowing they won't get it, and the government pretend they're not interested and won't pay any more to try and get the firemen to accept the 4%. The firemen stick to their guns and keep demanding the 40% although they know they won't get it...

Seems like a pretty risky game of bluffing to me... I reckon eventually the government will have to offer a bit more than the 4%, and the union will lower their 40% and eventually the two will meet in the middle. But to me it just seems both sides are being too stubborn to see that they'll have to compromise... If they started to compromise now they'd avoid the strikes and save lives...

Grix Thraves wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> "I'm not telling you my surname as I want to remain
> anonymous."
>
> But we all know anyyewaay

*thumps Grix on the face*

Deh!

Oh that post is just riddled with innuendo gold!

Mystique wrote:
> Who's house?
> GOAT'S HOUSE
> Who's house?

He is off to eat some grass and visit the local gay sex shops. There nobodys house there, unless he goes to a squat.

Goatboy wrote:
> Does the Party-Boy dance and sings
>
> "La la la la...I'm off to Lundun in 3hrs for some Goaty fun"
******
Who's house?
GOAT'S HOUSE
Who's house?

anyway I think a 40% rise for firefighters is more reasonable and justifiable than a 41% pay rise to the government. THe government get "oh so much more" than they need anyway and its not like they are doing any good for the world. They are greedy and I will be happy when the liberal democrats win the next election.

* ready *

Oh I appoligise, I heard it on tv this morning whilst I was gettin readym and when its early 14 and 40 sound alike.

I appoligise!

Kyz22 wrote:
> I think they should get a payrise because the governmeny gave
> themselves a 41% pay rise to eat more caviar and buy more jaguars and
> BMW's, and the firemen only want 14% so give them it u selfish W.
> anchor Tony Blair.

Nope, wrong wrong wrong. You tipify the sole reason i don't participate in any sort of debate, because like others, you clearly don't even know the correct facts.

The Firefighters want a 40% payrise which in practical terms is not possible.

And they say ignorance is bliss.......