The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Goatboy wrote:
to
> give the casual viewer the "if the firemen were working that
> wouldn't have happened" notion.
Oh yes - the slant is definately there but I refer to my earlier post - about how the local fireman was boasting that they would have been to the fire 10 minutes earlier and would "probably" have saved the 86 year old womans life - I'm sure her relatives would have been comforted when they hear remarks like that.
> A lot of firemen have 2nd jobs, to suppliment income. Working less
> than 40hrs a week allows them to work a 2nd job, but changing these
> hours to 50+ (compared to an average of 80 hrs plus for student nurses
> and house-doctors) will remove the possibility of a 2nd income.
> Now, before you start, not all firemen do this and neither do they
> take another job so they can live like kings.
> Many do this because of the poor pay structure available at the
> moment.
Yes but - the Average salary in the UK at present is just under 24K this being the average of every one - from 3.50/hr McDonalds workers to Multi million pound company execs and Elton John.
That means that at present Firemen are 2.5K below the national average - The original 16% would have put them up to just under 25K - above the national average.
There are millions of families that cope with much much less than the current firemans salary - without 2nd jobs. The fact that many firemen have 2nd jobs is through choice - not necessity.
to
> give the casual viewer the "if the firemen were working that
> wouldn't have happened" notion.
Oh yes - the slant is definately there but I refer to my earlier post - about how the local fireman was boasting that they would have been to the fire 10 minutes earlier and would "probably" have saved the 86 year old womans life - I'm sure her relatives would have been comforted when they hear remarks like that.
> A lot of firemen have 2nd jobs, to suppliment income. Working less
> than 40hrs a week allows them to work a 2nd job, but changing these
> hours to 50+ (compared to an average of 80 hrs plus for student nurses
> and house-doctors) will remove the possibility of a 2nd income.
> Now, before you start, not all firemen do this and neither do they
> take another job so they can live like kings.
> Many do this because of the poor pay structure available at the
> moment.
Yes but - the Average salary in the UK at present is just under 24K this being the average of every one - from 3.50/hr McDonalds workers to Multi million pound company execs and Elton John.
That means that at present Firemen are 2.5K below the national average - The original 16% would have put them up to just under 25K - above the national average.
There are millions of families that cope with much much less than the current firemans salary - without 2nd jobs. The fact that many firemen have 2nd jobs is through choice - not necessity.
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
--
This is before tax.
Where are you people getting this "take home of £21k" from? I dont understand.
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
--
This is before tax.
Where are you people getting this "take home of £21k" from? I dont understand.
Uh-huh.
what is so "poor" about taking home £21k?
Or even, as they were offered, but refused, £22k rising to £23.5k.
MOst people in the country would be proud to take home that sort of wage, indeed, it's WELL WELL WELL above the national average.
The fools should take the offer they've been given, it's very fair!
Or even, as they were offered, but refused, £22k rising to £23.5k.
MOst people in the country would be proud to take home that sort of wage, indeed, it's WELL WELL WELL above the national average.
The fools should take the offer they've been given, it's very fair!
What I find amusing is the gentle, almost un-noticeable slant in the media against the firecrews.
Reports of how many Green Godesses attended a fire in a fireworks factory in Manchester (just opposite a main fire-station..hmmm), reports on people dying in fires (which happens each and every day) to give the casual viewer the "if the firemen were working that wouldn't have happened" notion.
And what I find the most ironic of all? John Prescott huffing and puffing about the "unreasonable" demands.
What he, and the news/papers seem to have forgotten is that Labour were the instigators and main supporters of Unions in the first place.
The "Winter of Discontent" of the late 70s, when the entire country was on a 3-day week with most services striking, the miner's dispute etc.
Labour's support of Unions was one of the main reasons for the Tories being elected, heralding 20 years of anti-union trend.
Yet now Labour are in power, originally a socialist party, they condemn a Union for striking? When was the last time the Fire Service striked?
The 1970s, and who was the government at the time?
Thaaaats right, Labour.
But I dont see this being reported in a supposedly partisan news culture.
I expect that from the BBC, owned by the government, but papers like The Telegraph and Times, notoriously pro-labour, have not once mentioned previous support and structure from the old Labour party.
Neither are they talking about the other reason for the strike and refusal of government offers - the change/update in working practices.
A lot of firemen have 2nd jobs, to suppliment income. Working less than 40hrs a week allows them to work a 2nd job, but changing these hours to 50+ (compared to an average of 80 hrs plus for student nurses and house-doctors) will remove the possibility of a 2nd income.
Now, before you start, not all firemen do this and neither do they take another job so they can live like kings.
Many do this because of the poor pay structure available at the moment.
It's not just about a 40% increase, but people seem to be forgetting this.
As people are forgetting Labour's previous stance towards Unions and strike-action to pressure for their own ways.
New Labour - Old Tories.
Socialist Party? Concerned for "the working man"? Dont make me laugh, we've seen taxes increased (cheers Ken Livingstone for congestion charging in London, you pay on top of road-tax to simply drive?) and we've seen a 180 degree in attitudes from what was previously a staunch "defender of the working class" to yet another tired form of government that operates no differently to The Tories did.
Only the faces change.
Reports of how many Green Godesses attended a fire in a fireworks factory in Manchester (just opposite a main fire-station..hmmm), reports on people dying in fires (which happens each and every day) to give the casual viewer the "if the firemen were working that wouldn't have happened" notion.
And what I find the most ironic of all? John Prescott huffing and puffing about the "unreasonable" demands.
What he, and the news/papers seem to have forgotten is that Labour were the instigators and main supporters of Unions in the first place.
The "Winter of Discontent" of the late 70s, when the entire country was on a 3-day week with most services striking, the miner's dispute etc.
Labour's support of Unions was one of the main reasons for the Tories being elected, heralding 20 years of anti-union trend.
Yet now Labour are in power, originally a socialist party, they condemn a Union for striking? When was the last time the Fire Service striked?
The 1970s, and who was the government at the time?
Thaaaats right, Labour.
But I dont see this being reported in a supposedly partisan news culture.
I expect that from the BBC, owned by the government, but papers like The Telegraph and Times, notoriously pro-labour, have not once mentioned previous support and structure from the old Labour party.
Neither are they talking about the other reason for the strike and refusal of government offers - the change/update in working practices.
A lot of firemen have 2nd jobs, to suppliment income. Working less than 40hrs a week allows them to work a 2nd job, but changing these hours to 50+ (compared to an average of 80 hrs plus for student nurses and house-doctors) will remove the possibility of a 2nd income.
Now, before you start, not all firemen do this and neither do they take another job so they can live like kings.
Many do this because of the poor pay structure available at the moment.
It's not just about a 40% increase, but people seem to be forgetting this.
As people are forgetting Labour's previous stance towards Unions and strike-action to pressure for their own ways.
New Labour - Old Tories.
Socialist Party? Concerned for "the working man"? Dont make me laugh, we've seen taxes increased (cheers Ken Livingstone for congestion charging in London, you pay on top of road-tax to simply drive?) and we've seen a 180 degree in attitudes from what was previously a staunch "defender of the working class" to yet another tired form of government that operates no differently to The Tories did.
Only the faces change.
WòókieeMøn§Ý€® wrote:
> Sorry, but I don't believe that they should be paid a pittance simply
> because there are - apparently - many others willing to do their job.
I agree, they should not be paid a pittance and I am not suggesting we lower their package, which currently seems very adequate and clearly causes lots of people to apply to join the service.
They should have normal cost of living rises around the rate of inflation, and if they want to earn more they should strive to climb the ranks like everybody else.
> Sorry, but I don't believe that they should be paid a pittance simply
> because there are - apparently - many others willing to do their job.
I agree, they should not be paid a pittance and I am not suggesting we lower their package, which currently seems very adequate and clearly causes lots of people to apply to join the service.
They should have normal cost of living rises around the rate of inflation, and if they want to earn more they should strive to climb the ranks like everybody else.
Tony wrote:
>
> They should not be paid a rate based on their ability to hold the
> country to ransom.
And that's the crux of it.
What is really getting my goat at the moment is when you see firefighters being interviewed and they are boasting about how damn they are. The incident where the 86 year old lady died the other night I find especially galling.
I saw an interview with one of the firemen who said " It took the army 12 minutes to get there - we would have been there in 2 minutes and would have probably saved her "
So now you actually have fire men boasting about the fact that somebody has died who in their eyes needn't have !
They know full well that they are putting lives at risk and are using that to hold the country to ransom for an unrealistic wage demand. With all these people out of work that want to jin the fire service maybe the government should state that any that go back to work can keep their jobs and have the original 16% offer, any that don't can go to the job centre, the army could work alongside those that stay for as long as it takes to build up the fire service again.
Yes I know it's a daft idea before Bellbandy comes and rips it apart but it's also daft that the fireman have even been allowed to go on strike. In most other civilised countries they are treated as civil servants and are not allowed to partake in such action.
>
> They should not be paid a rate based on their ability to hold the
> country to ransom.
And that's the crux of it.
What is really getting my goat at the moment is when you see firefighters being interviewed and they are boasting about how damn they are. The incident where the 86 year old lady died the other night I find especially galling.
I saw an interview with one of the firemen who said " It took the army 12 minutes to get there - we would have been there in 2 minutes and would have probably saved her "
So now you actually have fire men boasting about the fact that somebody has died who in their eyes needn't have !
They know full well that they are putting lives at risk and are using that to hold the country to ransom for an unrealistic wage demand. With all these people out of work that want to jin the fire service maybe the government should state that any that go back to work can keep their jobs and have the original 16% offer, any that don't can go to the job centre, the army could work alongside those that stay for as long as it takes to build up the fire service again.
Yes I know it's a daft idea before Bellbandy comes and rips it apart but it's also daft that the fireman have even been allowed to go on strike. In most other civilised countries they are treated as civil servants and are not allowed to partake in such action.
<- Pappa Lazarou -> wrote:
> yeah, I agree, but people in the army are getting shot at for less
> wages, and if they strike they go to prison.
At the moment more army personnel are dying during training than in military operations... and it's not exactly a comparable career is it ? Firefighters enter situations often against the odds, where as modern warfare and tactics emphasis going in with the odds in your favour.
~~Belldandy~~
> yeah, I agree, but people in the army are getting shot at for less
> wages, and if they strike they go to prison.
At the moment more army personnel are dying during training than in military operations... and it's not exactly a comparable career is it ? Firefighters enter situations often against the odds, where as modern warfare and tactics emphasis going in with the odds in your favour.
~~Belldandy~~
yeah, I agree, but people in the army are getting shot at for less wages, and if they strike they go to prison.
Something DOES have to be done, but striking is not a responsible action considering the large part they play in society. this is not an inconvenience, it is a threat to peoples lives. The government is being stubborn, but you must admit that NOONE would agree to the pay rise they are asking for.
That aside, the army should have full use of all the equipment until the matter is resolved.
Something DOES have to be done, but striking is not a responsible action considering the large part they play in society. this is not an inconvenience, it is a threat to peoples lives. The government is being stubborn, but you must admit that NOONE would agree to the pay rise they are asking for.
That aside, the army should have full use of all the equipment until the matter is resolved.
<- Pappa Lazarou -> wrote:
> no emergency services or armed forces should have the freedom to
> strike.
I agree in principle, but what other ammunition do they have?
People die in hospital blunders because of overworked doctors and nurses; overworked because of low staffing levels; no-one wants to do the job because of the low pay and abuse they get.
Police and ambulance crews have the same problems, and numbers are low.
It won't be long before the fire brigade faces the same problem. Hoax calls; abuse from groups of yobs; low pay. All the same issues that the other services have.
No one supporting the fire fighters is denying that the other services also deserve more money. It's just that the fire fighters are the first who've have the cojones to do something about it, and they're getting the flak.
What annoys me is when the government say they don't have the cash, when they manage to find over £500 million for irrelevant projects such as the Millennium Dome, then sell if off at a massive loss.
I know where I'd rather my tax money went.
> no emergency services or armed forces should have the freedom to
> strike.
I agree in principle, but what other ammunition do they have?
People die in hospital blunders because of overworked doctors and nurses; overworked because of low staffing levels; no-one wants to do the job because of the low pay and abuse they get.
Police and ambulance crews have the same problems, and numbers are low.
It won't be long before the fire brigade faces the same problem. Hoax calls; abuse from groups of yobs; low pay. All the same issues that the other services have.
No one supporting the fire fighters is denying that the other services also deserve more money. It's just that the fire fighters are the first who've have the cojones to do something about it, and they're getting the flak.
What annoys me is when the government say they don't have the cash, when they manage to find over £500 million for irrelevant projects such as the Millennium Dome, then sell if off at a massive loss.
I know where I'd rather my tax money went.
Page: