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.

around 30 k, and nurses get a pittance for doing a job that in my opinion is on par. sure they don't risk their lives, and that deserves extra, but 40% extra? they're living in a dreamworld.

i agree, they are putting innocent lives at risk...
they get paid a fair bit any way dont they???

AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST. everybody deserves more money, but 40% is asking too much, and they're putting lives at risk. have you seen those crappy green goddesses???

I was in a delivery job last year and the firefighters were on strike when I was going through Liverpool in my truck. So I gave them a couple of honks to give my support. I didn't think it'd be a yearly thing though. Or is it not the Liverpool firefighters?

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. They are paid to save lives - so they strike and put lives at risk. Doesn't that seem stupid to you? If I was a fireman I wouldn't strike - I would have no integrity or dignity left afterwards. You can't say that you do an important service and save lives when you go on strike like that. You can't put fires on hold.

And 40%? That's just too much. 10% maybe, but 40? Where's the money gonna come from? Taxes or other important services. The firemen might get their extra money and then have no funding for equipment, "Can we have 40% extra for equipment, please", well no you can't.

They should get the (well, "a") raise but the manner they're going about getting it is all wrong.

Im against it, firefighting is a semi skilled job, yeah they may go into a dangerous building on occasion, but the rest of the time they are sitting around in the station maintaining equipment, or attending a chip pan fire. Policemen are FAR more prone to danger (trust me my uncle is a policeman). Also this 40% proposal would mean they would earn more money than a biochemist, which frankly p***es me off, seeing as you have to get a degree for that sort of thing, and working with viruses is Extremely dangerous. (Ask my biology lecturer)

And about taxes

The more money you have... going up in millions, you get millions taking off you.

You don't need that much... give it to them.

Socialism baby

I think somebody who earns +£50000 gets 40% off in tax

It stays at 40% above that

You have 10 million wealth... I want 70-80% off that

All for it

They get poorly paid for risking their lifes

All this tax crap.. it won't RISE that much... anyway you may be saved by them one day.

against, because if they are on strike and there is a fire, and a load of people die then they are going to carry that guilt of not putting that fire out for a long time.

I'm for, but am worried of possible fires.