The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
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.
Page:
Sinnott wrote:
> I seriously cannot believe you dont think they should be paid more!
My point is simple. Their pay should be in line market forces of supply and demand, and not by holding the country to ransom, just like 99.9% of other people in the UK. Failing this ALL those in a position to hold the country to ransom (e.g. tube workers et al) will take advantage and follow suit. And if the fire fighters' pension rights are worth a significant amount then this must be included as a benefit in any assessment of their remuneration, instead of being swept under the carpet.
Of course the government faces a pension cricis in the future. When you reach a ratio of one person working for every person in a pension then the burden is immense unless somebody has actually saved the money for the pensions. That, as we all know, is not the case with the government, so it will take about four people paying tax, just to pay for one fire fighter's pension in the future. (That's not the fire fighter's fault of course)
> I seriously cannot believe you dont think they should be paid more!
My point is simple. Their pay should be in line market forces of supply and demand, and not by holding the country to ransom, just like 99.9% of other people in the UK. Failing this ALL those in a position to hold the country to ransom (e.g. tube workers et al) will take advantage and follow suit. And if the fire fighters' pension rights are worth a significant amount then this must be included as a benefit in any assessment of their remuneration, instead of being swept under the carpet.
Of course the government faces a pension cricis in the future. When you reach a ratio of one person working for every person in a pension then the burden is immense unless somebody has actually saved the money for the pensions. That, as we all know, is not the case with the government, so it will take about four people paying tax, just to pay for one fire fighter's pension in the future. (That's not the fire fighter's fault of course)
Tony wrote:
> Sinnott wrote:
> 40% would cost the government about 200 million pounds.
>
> Correction, it would cost the taxpayer about 200 million pounds. And
> in 30 years time it would cost the taxpaper a billion in extra
> pensions.
Sorry presumed this was obvious to all! If they paid for the increase in wages in taxes then it would be barely noticiable, but what is more likely is Gordon would pay for it in the short term by borrowing a bit more and then when the economy looks healthier raising taxes. As hes already commited to raising taxes this wouldnt be long.
Also the country is already looking at a huge pension problem in the future, which the government is in the process of shamefully side stepping and leaving us all to the mercy of the private sector! And as any negotiations so far have considered pension reform i imagine this wouldnt be the huge problem you fntasise about!
I seriously cannot believe you dont think they should be paid more!
> Sinnott wrote:
> 40% would cost the government about 200 million pounds.
>
> Correction, it would cost the taxpayer about 200 million pounds. And
> in 30 years time it would cost the taxpaper a billion in extra
> pensions.
Sorry presumed this was obvious to all! If they paid for the increase in wages in taxes then it would be barely noticiable, but what is more likely is Gordon would pay for it in the short term by borrowing a bit more and then when the economy looks healthier raising taxes. As hes already commited to raising taxes this wouldnt be long.
Also the country is already looking at a huge pension problem in the future, which the government is in the process of shamefully side stepping and leaving us all to the mercy of the private sector! And as any negotiations so far have considered pension reform i imagine this wouldnt be the huge problem you fntasise about!
I seriously cannot believe you dont think they should be paid more!
Sinnott wrote:
> 40% would cost the government about 200 million pounds.
Correction, it would cost the taxpayer about 200 million pounds. And in 30 years time it would cost the taxpaper a billion in extra pensions.
> 40% would cost the government about 200 million pounds.
Correction, it would cost the taxpayer about 200 million pounds. And in 30 years time it would cost the taxpaper a billion in extra pensions.
Tony wrote:
> er - yes. Exactly my sentinents.
Sarcasm!?!?!! Im so offended! This isnt just a misplaced working class sentiment. I know many more people want these jobs but that takes little away from its importance. Their isnt that many firefighters, about 5000 i think. 40% would cost the government about 200 million pounds. As nobody including the Union boss expect to get this it will cost even less, not a big hole in public spending!
> er - yes. Exactly my sentinents.
Sarcasm!?!?!! Im so offended! This isnt just a misplaced working class sentiment. I know many more people want these jobs but that takes little away from its importance. Their isnt that many firefighters, about 5000 i think. 40% would cost the government about 200 million pounds. As nobody including the Union boss expect to get this it will cost even less, not a big hole in public spending!
Sinnott wrote:
> UP THE UNION!!!
er - yes. Exactly my sentinents.
*_*
> UP THE UNION!!!
er - yes. Exactly my sentinents.
*_*
We have to support the strike. The job they do is dangerous, highly skilled and largely thankless; and they do it all for six quid a week! Personally i think they deserve the 40% (which would only give them 30K)
but as this is unrealistic the 16% thats been banded around sounds fair.
The penalties of the strike are large of course BUT remember, on average somebody dies in fires everyday, usually more. As long as we - the Public arent taken in by the press that many more people are dying due to the strikes the Firefighters will get the money!
UP THE UNION!!!
but as this is unrealistic the 16% thats been banded around sounds fair.
The penalties of the strike are large of course BUT remember, on average somebody dies in fires everyday, usually more. As long as we - the Public arent taken in by the press that many more people are dying due to the strikes the Firefighters will get the money!
UP THE UNION!!!
I hop ethe Foo Fighters dont go on strike again before Wednesday, cos I've got tickets to see them play in Cardiff.
Still if they're picketing outside the venue I'll beep my horn in support, I spose.
Still if they're picketing outside the venue I'll beep my horn in support, I spose.
(sorry if I'm repeating anybody's post)
Personally I think that that the Firefighters deserve a raise, but nothing on the huge scale that they want. The 5% instant rise that the government have offered them is above the rate of inflation and a lumped raise of over 12% could create a collapse in economy in the public service sector, if the fireman get a 20%,30% or a 40% raise by having a little tantrum other parts of the sector will do the same, nurses, paramedics, police and the like.
The people at the fault of this is not the government, it's their union. They have let the firemen's wages fall behind and have done little about it. They now want one big rise, regardless of the casulties.
Oh and one more thing, if somebody close to me is hurt thanks to the strike, there will be a few new firemen needed in my area...
Personally I think that that the Firefighters deserve a raise, but nothing on the huge scale that they want. The 5% instant rise that the government have offered them is above the rate of inflation and a lumped raise of over 12% could create a collapse in economy in the public service sector, if the fireman get a 20%,30% or a 40% raise by having a little tantrum other parts of the sector will do the same, nurses, paramedics, police and the like.
The people at the fault of this is not the government, it's their union. They have let the firemen's wages fall behind and have done little about it. They now want one big rise, regardless of the casulties.
Oh and one more thing, if somebody close to me is hurt thanks to the strike, there will be a few new firemen needed in my area...
INKman wrote:
> So no, I don't support the fireman strike. Just sack the lot of them
> and watch their places fill up in seconds.
WòókieeMøn§Ý€® wrote:
> And have no qualified firefighters for four years while more are
> trained? Real bright idea. No thanks.
INKman's idea is not as far off the mark as it seems. A high proportion of the Firemen would simply apply to get their jobs back. The main reason that local authorities will not sack the firemen, is (in my opinion) that it could cause a general strike, or local council strikes, in sympathy.
Oh - and they don't want to get voted out at the next election.
> So no, I don't support the fireman strike. Just sack the lot of them
> and watch their places fill up in seconds.
WòókieeMøn§Ý€® wrote:
> And have no qualified firefighters for four years while more are
> trained? Real bright idea. No thanks.
INKman's idea is not as far off the mark as it seems. A high proportion of the Firemen would simply apply to get their jobs back. The main reason that local authorities will not sack the firemen, is (in my opinion) that it could cause a general strike, or local council strikes, in sympathy.
Oh - and they don't want to get voted out at the next election.
Well, it did wonders for your word count.
Page: