The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
in all honesty, the firefighters DO deserve more money, but 40% is over the top, no boss on the planet would agree to that, and it is downright irresponsible of them to strike. people have already died, maybe as a direct result of their strike. in my view they should be prosecuted for manslaughter.
no emergency services or armed forces should have the freedom to strike. imagine if the police suddenly went "I think this is unfair" and gave up work. the place would be anarchy.
get a grip people, this is not the only solution and my sympathy is growing more and more thin....
no emergency services or armed forces should have the freedom to strike. imagine if the police suddenly went "I think this is unfair" and gave up work. the place would be anarchy.
get a grip people, this is not the only solution and my sympathy is growing more and more thin....
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.
WòókieeMøn§Ý€® wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> Ok, so we pay all the public service workers 40% more.
>
> Too much emphasis on the percentage and not what they're actually
> getting. Yes, 40% is high. But 40% of nothing is nothing. IB gets
> £30k a year for the *ahem* "stress" of being an
> accountant, and someone who risks their life for others doesn't?
>
>
> I wonder if you are even aware of just how good a Fireman's pension
> is? Paid for by you, all of you, whatever your age, in the future.
>
> And I gladly pay it. I'd rather pay it for them than the numerous
> other things the government wastes my tax money on.
>
> And so what if a fireman's pension is good? What difference does it
> make when they're on lousy pay *now*, and may not actually live to
> claim that pension?
I can assure you that Firemen are very passionate indeed about their pension rights. They are likely to be worth between £5,000 and £10,000 per year on top of their basic pay (just a guess). That's a material benefit and MUST be taken into account when judging their remuneration package.
The correct method of judging Fire Fighter's pay is on a market basis. That's the way every single private sector employment is valued. If there is a shortage of skilled accountants then they get paid more. That's how the market works. They should be paid the "going rate" to recruit a person suitable for the role.
They should not be paid a rate based on their ability to hold the country to ransom.
> Tony wrote:
> Ok, so we pay all the public service workers 40% more.
>
> Too much emphasis on the percentage and not what they're actually
> getting. Yes, 40% is high. But 40% of nothing is nothing. IB gets
> £30k a year for the *ahem* "stress" of being an
> accountant, and someone who risks their life for others doesn't?
>
>
> I wonder if you are even aware of just how good a Fireman's pension
> is? Paid for by you, all of you, whatever your age, in the future.
>
> And I gladly pay it. I'd rather pay it for them than the numerous
> other things the government wastes my tax money on.
>
> And so what if a fireman's pension is good? What difference does it
> make when they're on lousy pay *now*, and may not actually live to
> claim that pension?
I can assure you that Firemen are very passionate indeed about their pension rights. They are likely to be worth between £5,000 and £10,000 per year on top of their basic pay (just a guess). That's a material benefit and MUST be taken into account when judging their remuneration package.
The correct method of judging Fire Fighter's pay is on a market basis. That's the way every single private sector employment is valued. If there is a shortage of skilled accountants then they get paid more. That's how the market works. They should be paid the "going rate" to recruit a person suitable for the role.
They should not be paid a rate based on their ability to hold the country to ransom.
Round my way firemen get stones chucked at them while out on call (this pre-dates the strike, so it can't be blamed on New Labour vigilantes). Then, once they've put out the fire/rescued the cat/shown of their uniform, they go and give a good shoeing to the muppets who tried to brick them. If that isn't worth an extra 40% then nothing is.
I MADE NO SUCH REQUEST!!
*deletes Sent Items*
*deletes Sent Items*
You're only jealous because we rejected your request for a threesome.
look everyone!
LESBIANS!!
LESBIANS!!
*catches it and puts it in his pocket*
I'll keep that for later.
I'll keep that for later.
* Blows Goaty a kiss *
Gissa hug you blinkered Nationalist thug you!
Page: