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.

If everyone stopped watching football on sky, buying merchandise and going to matches, then I garuantee footballers would be paid significantly less.

If you do any of these, you're guilty of paying their wages and so should stop complaining. If you don't, then you are not funding them, so there's no reason for it to bother you.

I wouldn't be happy paying it, but footballers shouldn't be earning more than firemen.

Against it.
All they do is point a big garden hose at a few flames.
Greedy b'stards.

No seriously. They deserve a pay rise - they risk their lives, blah, blah, blah.

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

I'm all for it.

They put their lives at risk to save people. Look at what footballers get these days.

El blokey wrote:
> I'm wholly for it.
>
> David Beckham gets a few million for kicking a ball around and these
> people save lives every day.
>
> The emergency services are all underpaid.

Exactly.

Bang on.

I'm wholly for it.

David Beckham gets a few million for kicking a ball around and these people save lives every day.

The emergency services are all underpaid.

If the government stopped sending millions in aid to other countries (a bit controversial, but surely tax payers money should go to OUR country? Or at least send food and not cash- I don't really know where all the aid goes but you get my meaning....)
or at least stop funding useless projects like the ill-fated Millenium Dome then the government could afford to pay firefighters more money.

It's a capitalist world. If people can be found who are willing (and capable) to do the job for that money, then to pay them more makes little sense. Supply and demand...

Are the firefighters grateful that they have a job that many envy? Do they like the feeling of doing something for the community, and the image associated with firemen? They have a lot going for them, yet they see fit to complain further. All these people knew the deal when they took the tests, and if they didn't then more fool them.

Anyone remember the Unions and Margaret Thatcher?

Miners risked their lives. Not to save others perhaps, but their workers effectively kept the economy going. During strikes Britain was basically shut down. Perhaps the miners deserved better pay, more priveledges and whatnot for the job they were doing, but strike threats are an abuse of power. They had the power do seriously disrupt the country, and did so for their own ends. This is no different.


So all we need now is to privatise the fire service :)

Firefighters do deserve more money, that is for certain. I think the problem they face is that the profession they are in is so popular, yet undervalued. 48 people apply for every position filled in the F-brigade so recruitment has never been a problem, thus salary has never been used as an incentive.

That said some people in the army do not start on anymore than a fireman and they put their lives at risk. They can't go on strike either...