The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Round and round and round we go.
None of us are
(a) Firemen
(b) The Government
Hence, instead of chasing my tail and blah blah, I'm off to smoke and await this evening.
None of us are
(a) Firemen
(b) The Government
Hence, instead of chasing my tail and blah blah, I'm off to smoke and await this evening.
Goatboy wrote:
> And dont give me that crap about window-cleaners/lollipop ladies being
> at risk. A firefighter is one of the few jobs I can think of where the
> sole purpose is to place yourself in danger for the benefit of
> others.
More long distance Lorry drivers get killed in the course of their job each year than firemen. Firemen adhere to strict health and safety procedures. At the end of the day - when they are on a shout - it is the decision of the individual firefighter if he will go in or not.
> And for IB and everyone else:
> You seem so passionate about the pay they get and "I'd do
> it".
I wouldn't do it - I'm just saying that there demands are unreasonable and if the government were to capitulate it would lead to more and more industrial unrest with more and more people striking for what they consider fairer pay - when in fact they would all be motivated by greed. If firemen can have 40% why can't I ?? etc etc...
>
> Quit your job today and go train to be a fireman.
No way - I earn lots more than they do. And I'm too old and too unfit.
> And dont give me that crap about window-cleaners/lollipop ladies being
> at risk. A firefighter is one of the few jobs I can think of where the
> sole purpose is to place yourself in danger for the benefit of
> others.
More long distance Lorry drivers get killed in the course of their job each year than firemen. Firemen adhere to strict health and safety procedures. At the end of the day - when they are on a shout - it is the decision of the individual firefighter if he will go in or not.
> And for IB and everyone else:
> You seem so passionate about the pay they get and "I'd do
> it".
I wouldn't do it - I'm just saying that there demands are unreasonable and if the government were to capitulate it would lead to more and more industrial unrest with more and more people striking for what they consider fairer pay - when in fact they would all be motivated by greed. If firemen can have 40% why can't I ?? etc etc...
>
> Quit your job today and go train to be a fireman.
No way - I earn lots more than they do. And I'm too old and too unfit.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I currently earn more than they do. But if they can beat my wage in a
> northern area of the country, I'll be very tempted to drop everything
> and move to Hull.
I've got a spare room :p
> I currently earn more than they do. But if they can beat my wage in a
> northern area of the country, I'll be very tempted to drop everything
> and move to Hull.
I've got a spare room :p
Goatboy wrote:
> Yes, but you aren't expected to put your life in danger to rescue
> somebody else.
No but we all put our lives in danger to some extent at work. I certainly do. I routinly deal with primary samples of human tissue and blood which could be contaminated. True I have been immunised against many of the pathogens that could be carried by such tissue, but there are many others that there is no immunization for the most well known being the HIV virus.
As an aside. Firefighters have refused to enter our Labs in a fire because of the risk of biohazard, which would be very minimal to them
> Why are people so against paying those that risk their lives daily,
> for no other reason than to save other people, getting paid in like?
I'm not against Firefighters getting a pay rise, but I think 40% is rather an improbable number. I was rather wondering if I ought to push my other half in the direction of the job. Being a small man though, they probably wouldn't take him.
> And dont give me that crap about window-cleaners/lollipop ladies being
> at risk. A firefighter is one of the few jobs I can think of where the
> sole purpose is to place yourself in danger for the benefit of
> others.
They do know that thats what they are expected to do when they accept the job, don't they?
> Quit your job today and go train to be a fireman.
Do they take women :D
> Yes, but you aren't expected to put your life in danger to rescue
> somebody else.
No but we all put our lives in danger to some extent at work. I certainly do. I routinly deal with primary samples of human tissue and blood which could be contaminated. True I have been immunised against many of the pathogens that could be carried by such tissue, but there are many others that there is no immunization for the most well known being the HIV virus.
As an aside. Firefighters have refused to enter our Labs in a fire because of the risk of biohazard, which would be very minimal to them
> Why are people so against paying those that risk their lives daily,
> for no other reason than to save other people, getting paid in like?
I'm not against Firefighters getting a pay rise, but I think 40% is rather an improbable number. I was rather wondering if I ought to push my other half in the direction of the job. Being a small man though, they probably wouldn't take him.
> And dont give me that crap about window-cleaners/lollipop ladies being
> at risk. A firefighter is one of the few jobs I can think of where the
> sole purpose is to place yourself in danger for the benefit of
> others.
They do know that thats what they are expected to do when they accept the job, don't they?
> Quit your job today and go train to be a fireman.
Do they take women :D
I currently earn more than they do. But if they can beat my wage in a northern area of the country, I'll be very tempted to drop everything and move to Hull.
Yes, but you aren't expected to put your life in danger to rescue somebody else.
No offence, I'm sure what you do is important in the field you work in.
Why are people so against paying those that risk their lives daily, for no other reason than to save other people, getting paid in like?
And dont give me that crap about window-cleaners/lollipop ladies being at risk. A firefighter is one of the few jobs I can think of where the sole purpose is to place yourself in danger for the benefit of others.
And for IB and everyone else:
You seem so passionate about the pay they get and "I'd do it".
So do it. I'm not being facietious at all, I'm being perfectly polite and non-hostile:
Quit your job today and go train to be a fireman.
No offence, I'm sure what you do is important in the field you work in.
Why are people so against paying those that risk their lives daily, for no other reason than to save other people, getting paid in like?
And dont give me that crap about window-cleaners/lollipop ladies being at risk. A firefighter is one of the few jobs I can think of where the sole purpose is to place yourself in danger for the benefit of others.
And for IB and everyone else:
You seem so passionate about the pay they get and "I'd do it".
So do it. I'm not being facietious at all, I'm being perfectly polite and non-hostile:
Quit your job today and go train to be a fireman.
From Ananova.com...
-----
'Strikers won't stop troops taking red fire engines' - Gilchrist
Firefighters will not try to stop troops using red fire engines from their stations if a scheduled eight-day strike goes ahead, says a union leader.
The Government has indicated that the more sophisticated fire engines will be used if the next stoppage goes ahead on November 22.
But Fire Brigades Union chief Andy Gilchrist says his members will not stop troops going through their picket lines.
"Firefighters are neither prepared nor looking to hinder the armed forces. I don't think you will see unarmed firefighters taking on the forces from the military.
"But there is an issue about safety.
"These are extremely complex and technical pieces of equipment and whatever skills the armed forces have, they certainly don't have the necessary skills to operate a modern fire engine."
Mr Gilchrist called on the Government to free the employers to negotiate a settlement to end the dispute. But he warns the Bain Report on firefighters' pay is not the basis on which he will negotiate.
There were "a whole lot of damaging recommendations in that report", he told the BBC.
The FBU leader, who was in Belfast last night to address striking fire officers, says he is satisfied none of the deaths in fires across the UK during the strike could be attributed to the action.
"Firefighters have made an attendance at life threatening incidents and that will continue," he said.
-----
'Strikers won't stop troops taking red fire engines' - Gilchrist
Firefighters will not try to stop troops using red fire engines from their stations if a scheduled eight-day strike goes ahead, says a union leader.
The Government has indicated that the more sophisticated fire engines will be used if the next stoppage goes ahead on November 22.
But Fire Brigades Union chief Andy Gilchrist says his members will not stop troops going through their picket lines.
"Firefighters are neither prepared nor looking to hinder the armed forces. I don't think you will see unarmed firefighters taking on the forces from the military.
"But there is an issue about safety.
"These are extremely complex and technical pieces of equipment and whatever skills the armed forces have, they certainly don't have the necessary skills to operate a modern fire engine."
Mr Gilchrist called on the Government to free the employers to negotiate a settlement to end the dispute. But he warns the Bain Report on firefighters' pay is not the basis on which he will negotiate.
There were "a whole lot of damaging recommendations in that report", he told the BBC.
The FBU leader, who was in Belfast last night to address striking fire officers, says he is satisfied none of the deaths in fires across the UK during the strike could be attributed to the action.
"Firefighters have made an attendance at life threatening incidents and that will continue," he said.
Let me see if I've got this right. Fire fighters earn £17,000 going into the job with no training?
My boyfriend is currently earning less than 9K with a university education. I earn 12K in a job which requires a degree in a specific subject, and in which I will have to study AND work damn hard (including nights and weekends) for another 4 years if I want that to increase to a level of about 20K, which a firefighter can achive in 5 years.
I must be a mug
My boyfriend is currently earning less than 9K with a university education. I earn 12K in a job which requires a degree in a specific subject, and in which I will have to study AND work damn hard (including nights and weekends) for another 4 years if I want that to increase to a level of about 20K, which a firefighter can achive in 5 years.
I must be a mug
Goatboy wrote:
> During first 6 months 17208
> After 6 months and during 2nd year 17982
> During 3rd year 18843
> During 4th year 19776
> During 5th year (subject to being fully qualified) 21531
> After 15 years' service (qualified) 22491
> After 15 years' service (unqualified) 20694
So, before they've even had a day's training, they earn higher than the national average. That's the last of my sympathy for them gone in a wisp of smoke.
> This is before tax.
> Where are you people getting this "take home of £21k"
> from? I dont understand.
Yeah, yeah, shut up. My face hasn't woken up yet, and my fingers are lapping behind.
> During first 6 months 17208
> After 6 months and during 2nd year 17982
> During 3rd year 18843
> During 4th year 19776
> During 5th year (subject to being fully qualified) 21531
> After 15 years' service (qualified) 22491
> After 15 years' service (unqualified) 20694
So, before they've even had a day's training, they earn higher than the national average. That's the last of my sympathy for them gone in a wisp of smoke.
> This is before tax.
> Where are you people getting this "take home of £21k"
> from? I dont understand.
Yeah, yeah, shut up. My face hasn't woken up yet, and my fingers are lapping behind.
Goatboy wrote:
> Basic Payment for Firefighter aged 19+
>
> During first 6 months 17208
> After 6 months and during 2nd year 17982
> During 3rd year 18843
> During 4th year 19776
> During 5th year (subject to being fully qualified) 21531
> After 15 years' service (qualified) 22491
> After 15 years' service (unqualified) 20694
Those salaries for 19 year olds look damn good to me - when you consider that the average at that age is between 10 - 12K.
> Basic Payment for Firefighter aged 19+
>
> During first 6 months 17208
> After 6 months and during 2nd year 17982
> During 3rd year 18843
> During 4th year 19776
> During 5th year (subject to being fully qualified) 21531
> After 15 years' service (qualified) 22491
> After 15 years' service (unqualified) 20694
Those salaries for 19 year olds look damn good to me - when you consider that the average at that age is between 10 - 12K.
Page: