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.

Blank wrote:
> Now I agree with that. Only there's one thing wrong with it - if you
> strike you are no longer providing the 24h/d 365d/y service, so why
> should you get paid more? It's very hypocritical.

All they are asking for is £30, 000 a year for doing a job that may kill them any day. The manager where I work gets that for doing little more than going to the odd meeting and telling people what to do.

> I understand that unless you strike the government will just give you
> excuse after excuse and you'll never get anywhere. But a firefighter's
> job is to save lives - you can't just stop saving lives for your own
> sake. They knew the pay when they started the job. If they don't like
> it then quit - there is an abundance of people wanting to be
> firefighters and a shortage of train drivers (who earn a significant
> amount more).

You want them all to quit then ? Firstly, this means you'd have a load of training only firefighters with no experience people to help them. Secondly, most new recruits are single people, who once they decide they want a family, will see that on the current wages that's not possible to do comfortably.

I mean, get some perspective here ! Would you do a job for the pay they have now, go to all sorts of emergencies, at all sorts of times, and risk your life every time ? In America, on 9/11, the emergency services ran the opposite direction from everyone else. They ran towards the disaster, and many hundreds died trying to save lives. The Government has taken them for granted, and has had six months to sort this out but hasn't. The Government is actually the body responsible for employing people to save lives - the Fire Service is simply the agency that is tasked to do that. If the Government cannot supply a service without the agency it has tasked then that shows how vital those who work in that agency are - so pay them fairly !

~~Belldandy~~

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> The problem is just that - because of the type of job it is, the
> government have them over a barrel. Unfortunately, a strike is the
> *only* course of action available to them.

Here's something I heard on the radio that hopefully explains my point. A woman wrote in saying "I am a firefighters wife and have seen the things they have to go through. Going into burning houses where you don't know if the roof or floor will collapse everyday is tough. They save lives and provide a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year service and deserve more money for it" (or something to that effect)

Now I agree with that. Only there's one thing wrong with it - if you strike you are no longer providing the 24h/d 365d/y service, so why should you get paid more? It's very hypocritical.

I understand that unless you strike the government will just give you excuse after excuse and you'll never get anywhere. But a firefighter's job is to save lives - you can't just stop saving lives for your own sake. They knew the pay when they started the job. If they don't like it then quit - there is an abundance of people wanting to be firefighters and a shortage of train drivers (who earn a significant amount more).

Mr.Snuggly wrote:
> The thing I don't understand, is even if they go on strike, why can't
> we use their fire engines instead of those crummy old Green Goddesses?
> Is it simply a case of 'you're not allowed to use them' or the fact
> that no one knows how to use them?

The fire fighter's union(s) have expressed that: they would be unhappy about their picket lines being breached (by the Army) when people went about obtaining their vehicles. This could be taken as the Government being blatanlty disrespectful; ignoring the serious intention behind the strike. It's akin to asking striking teachers if the stand-ins can use their lesson plans.

Personally I think that the sanctity of the picket line is not as important as being able to save a family from a burning house. Principles are fine and the firefighters are entitled to better pay and conditions but surely they have a moral obligation to uphold.

Also if we are forced to use those old Green Godesses, anyone making prank emergency phone call outs should be flogged, if caught, (this should be the case anyway) and I hope that we don't see the appliances being used to rescue stupid cats from trees. The fire brigade does not exist to rescue pets. Especially when resources are stretched.

I just hope that a sensible solution or compromise can be reached and Mr Blair can prove to us how great a politician and diplomat he really (thinks he) is.

Flanders wrote:
> But it's not - the union have point blank refused to co-operate with
> the independent enquiry that the govt recommended be instigated to
> look into the wage structures.

True, but we all know how long government-organised independent enquiries take. It's just another way of saying "let's delay it until next year".

They had strikes last year because nothing was being done, and they were told "we'll look into it". Now we're a year on, and still nothing has been done.

The longer they take no action, the longer it will be.

They contain highly specialised equipment that needs alot of training to use correctly.

The thing I don't understand, is even if they go on strike, why can't we use their fire engines instead of those crummy old Green Goddesses? Is it simply a case of 'you're not allowed to use them' or the fact that no one knows how to use them?

If you down down to ground level you'll discover most firemen are willing to take a 20% pay rise, but no-one is talking to them. The unions and the govt are arguing between themselves and the firemen get no say in the matter. I can't support a strike when you look at the decrepid equipment the army will have to use should there be a strike. Lives will most definitely be lost.

I do fully support a pay rise, however. I'm not against the firemen, and they do put their lives at risk everyday for you and I, and they do deserve a lot more thanh they are getting paid. But the fact that neither side's representatives are willing to sit down and talk, means that the firefighters feel this is their only means of action. We need both sides to start listening to each other, and at least then we have a hope of averting strike action.

WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>
> The problem is just that - because of the type of job it is, the
> government have them over a barrel. Unfortunately, a strike is the
> *only* course of action available to them.

But it's not - the union have point blank refused to co-operate with the independent enquiry that the govt recommended be instigated to look into the wage structures.

There is another option open to them if they would be prepared to try it - the thing is - if they strike - as soon as the press report on one life lost during a fire, wether the fire service being there would make any difference or not , they will lose all public sympathy straight away.

I think they should do the sensible thing and go down the enquiry route first - it certainly makes sense from public safety angle and the members of the councils etc that will end up footing the bills for any increases will then have more sympathy.

Blank wrote:
> I'm against it. Of course they don't get paid enough for what they do,
> but when you do a job of that kind I don't believe a strike is the
> right course of action.

The problem is just that - because of the type of job it is, the government have them over a barrel. Unfortunately, a strike is the *only* course of action available to them.

VenomByte wrote:
> So you'd be 100% happy to pay extra taxes for their wages then?

I'd mix this with what Protoss said...

I don't think we should need to pay extra taxes - we pay enough to fund it anyway, if the government stop giving it away overseas.