Firefighters Striking During Firework Weekend.

[ozseagull]

Anyone voting wrong needs to ask themselves if they'd feel safe being rescued from a burning building by 60 year old firefighter.

If the government are to pigheaded to see this after 3 years of negotiations then striking is sadly necessary.

What about police being forced to work til 60 who can't strike. A grandad policing a violent protest and foot chasing after offenders half their age. Nonsense that fire fighters think they should be different.

 

[Stat Brother]

I thought they had called this off

The posties have called their strike off.

That was such a bad idea, I'm surprised the CWU didn't follow it through.

 

[User removed 4]

What about police being forced to work til 60 who can't strike. A grandad policing a violent protest and foot chasing after offenders half their age. Nonsense that fire fighters think they should be different.

Ive seen cozzers in their 30's who are so overweight they look like they'd get out of breath going for a piss , let alone chasing people .

 

[Stat Brother]

nor the postmen , they're being screwed by the government , just the same as hey would've been had we had a labour government.

Hmmm, I'm going to have to question your definition of screwed.

RM offered posties:-

8.7% over 3 years
3% this year, back dated to April
£300 agreement bonus

Under privatisation, that was originally proposed by Labour, and continued by the Tories
£750 (now about £3,000) free shares (over 99% acceptance)
Guaranteed working and pension conditions for 3 years

On top of our 'usual' £100 Christmas bonus
Plus a further £100 bonus, because we got screwed on a previous in house employee share scheme.


All those with cast iron guaranteed working conditions, 3% pay rises, for the next 3 years:-

raise your hands now.

 

[User removed 4]

Hmmm, I'm going to have to question your definition of screwed.

RM offered posties:-

8.7% over 3 years
3% this year, back dated to April
£300 agreement bonus

Under privatisation, that was originally proposed by Labour, and continued by the Tories
£750 (now about £3,000) free shares (over 99% acceptance)
Guaranteed working and pension conditions for 3 years

On top of our 'usual' £100 Christmas bonus
Plus a further £100 bonus, because we got screwed on a previous in house employee share scheme.


All those with cast iron guaranteed working conditions, 3% pay rises, for the next 3 years:-

raise your hands now.

you obviously know a lot more than me mate, the postman i was out with on tuesday night told me this , he claimed that they werent guaranteed any job for over a year, if as its as you say , then i obviously agree with you.

 

[Stat Brother]

you obviously know a lot more than me mate, the postman i was out with on tuesday night told me this , he claimed that they werent guaranteed any job for over a year, if as its as you say , then i obviously agree with you.

RM have slashed the worksforce.
They have done this by replacing full time contracted staff, as and when the leave or more likely retire, with short term contracted part-time employees.
This has gone on for at least 8 years.
My office, in that time, has gone from 100+ FT staff, to nearly half that with 30+ PT staff.

To my knowledge nobody will ever again be employed by RM as a full time employee.
As to the best of my knowledge no employee has been forced to take redundancy.
There have been very attractive Early Voluntary Redundancy packages, in the past, but they seem to be rarer now.

RM carry a lot of 'lifers'.
There are a couple in my office that started their in the 70's

I see RM as a professional Remploy.
When full privatisation happens unemployment will spike by 30,000 when the new owners realise quite how many posties can't function in the real world.

 

[Nathan]

The problem I have with all of this is that my job is not safe, i haven't had a pay raise, my pension plan is not worth having, and my working conditions are pretty shite. But i can't strike. I could look for another job but i actually enjoy what i am doing so will stay doing it. I also get a fair percentage of my salary based on sales, which have been lower the last couple of years due to the recession. Again, i could change jobs.

There are enough people looking for work at the moment who would love to be in full time employment, so i think rather than strike just resign. Let someone else do your job.

 

[User removed 4]

RM have slashed the worksforce.
They have done this by replacing full time contracted staff, as and when the leave or more likely retire, with short term contracted part-time employees.
This has gone on for at least 8 years.
My office, in that time, has gone from 100+ FT staff, to nearly half that with 30+ PT staff.

To my knowledge nobody will ever again be employed by RM as a full time employee.
As to the best of my knowledge no employee has been forced to take redundancy.
There have been very attractive Early Voluntary Redundancy packages, in the past, but they seem to be rarer now.

RM carry a lot of 'lifers'.
There are a couple in my office that started their in the 70's

I see RM as a professional Remploy.
When full privatisation happens unemployment will spike by 30,000 when the new owners realise quite how many posties can't function in the real world.

Thats what I dont agree with, if it wasnt a way of cutting benefits they wouldnt do it.

 

[Husty]

Not at all the firefighters fault that we decide that one night a year its perfectly fine to piss around with fire, anyone who is injured or dies should realize its their own fault for not taking the kind of basic precautions that they would on any other day of the year.

 

[Stat Brother]

Thats what I dont agree with, if it wasnt a way of cutting benefits they wouldnt do it.

As said it's been going on for 8 years now, so it's a bit late to complain.

The fact that it has been absorbed shows how over staffed RM once was.
TBH with a productive and efficient workforce, those cuts would still have a long way to go, but naturally it's harder with a workforce that's less than committed.

I call the approach to change within RM 'Institutionalized Autism', the rank and file 'lifers' really can't cope.

 

[Steve White]

Why would anyone not be?

A 60 year old bloke, kept in good condition (which he would be through the demands of his job) is more than capable of doing the job, in this day and age. A lot more so than a 50 year old of 30 years ago, I'd suggest. The rest of us will be working until we are 70. I've have no time for the assertion that 60 is too late for the firefighters.

And I say this as a good friend of a good number of Hampshire Fire and Rescue's finest. I know these blokes really well, as over the years they've all worked alongside me, as casuals, between their shifts.

In your opinion, but not in the opinion of Dr Williams who conducted the research on behalf of the government. Williams reported that the natural age-related decline in fitness would lead to 66% of currently serving firefighters being unable to achieve a fitness standard of 42ml/kg/min VO2 max between the ages of 55-60. This is largely because fire brigades recruit from the ordinary population and not elite athletes who may expect to maintain higher fitness levels in older age.

So what's to become of these firefighters who aren't fit enough to do the job, but aren't old enough to retire under the proposed scheme? Well in 2006 the government of the day promised that there would be non-operational re-deployment posts for them. The FBU conducted a survey of all 46 fire service employers this year. Only 5 responded that they had re-deployment jobs available, a total of 16 jobs representing 0.04% of the workforce nationally. So what else?

Well the national employers have been quite clear. Firefighters over the age of 55 who fail to achieve the required fitness level will face capability dismissal with no access to their pension until the deferred pension age, which is the national pension age. Remember, these are people who joined the service expecting to be able to retire at 55 (or over 50 with 30 years service).

Firefighters pay dearly for the right to retire earlier than other workers. They currently pay over 13% of their wages in their pension scheme and their contributions make up a higher proportion of the total scheme cost than in any other public sector pension scheme. And anyway, don't we deserve a fit, healthy fire and rescue service?

There's a lot of talk on this thread about firefighters doing second jobs, like that's some kind of justification for attacking the terms and conditions of their primary employment. It's a race-to-the-bottom frame of mind that will see all of us worse off to the benefit of the ruling elite. Yes, firefighter's shift patterns may lend themselves to working a second job, but don't you think they might be more inclined to spend their off-duty time with their loved ones if they could afford to? After all, they work a 42-hour week on average, nights, weekends, public holidays etc and routinely miss birthday celebrations, Christmas at home and so on to provide a 24/7 emergency service.

Nobody enjoys withdrawing their labour, least of all those of us that work in the emergency services, but after three years of negotiation with a government that's ignored every fact we've put under their noses we don't really have a choice. The four hour stoppage in September achieved virtually no press, at least the timing of this strike means that it's gained some attention. If you want to have a safe bonfire/firework party, go to an organised display. If you really must do it yourself, do it on Saturday night, or on Bonfire Night, when we're not on strike.

And please remember, we're not asking for anything, there are no demands for more or better; we're just stopping them from taking away what's ours. Firefighters didn't cause the economic crisis, and they don't get paid bonuses.

By the way, as an Orient fan, could I just say thank you very much for Tiny Cox and Romain Vincelot, both of whom are enjoying outstanding seasons at the O's this year.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[User removed 4]

In your opinion, but not in the opinion of Dr Williams who conducted the research on behalf of the government. Williams reported that the natural age-related decline in fitness would lead to 66% of currently serving firefighters being unable to achieve a fitness standard of 42ml/kg/min VO2 max between the ages of 55-60. This is largely because fire brigades recruit from the ordinary population and not elite athletes who may expect to maintain higher fitness levels in older age.

So what's to become of these firefighters who aren't fit enough to do the job, but aren't old enough to retire under the proposed scheme? Well in 2006 the government of the day promised that there would be non-operational re-deployment posts for them. The FBU conducted a survey of all 46 fire service employers this year. Only 5 responded that they had re-deployment jobs available, a total of 16 jobs representing 0.04% of the workforce nationally. So what else?

Well the national employers have been quite clear. Firefighters over the age of 55 who fail to achieve the required fitness level will face capability dismissal with no access to their pension until the deferred pension age, which is the national pension age. Remember, these are people who joined the service expecting to be able to retire at 55 (or over 50 with 30 years service).

Firefighters pay dearly for the right to retire earlier than other workers. They currently pay over 13% of their wages in their pension scheme and their contributions make up a higher proportion of the total scheme cost than in any other public sector pension scheme. And anyway, don't we deserve a fit, healthy fire and rescue service?

There's a lot of talk on this thread about firefighters doing second jobs, like that's some kind of justification for attacking the terms and conditions of their primary employment. It's a race-to-the-bottom frame of mind that will see all of us worse off to the benefit of the ruling elite. Yes, firefighter's shift patterns may lend themselves to working a second job, but don't you think they might be more inclined to spend their off-duty time with their loved ones if they could afford to? After all, they work a 42-hour week on average, nights, weekends, public holidays etc and routinely miss birthday celebrations, Christmas at home and so on to provide a 24/7 emergency service.

Nobody enjoys withdrawing their labour, least of all those of us that work in the emergency services, but after three years of negotiation with a government that's ignored every fact we've put under their noses we don't really have a choice. The four hour stoppage in September achieved virtually no press, at least the timing of this strike means that it's gained some attention. If you want to have a safe bonfire/firework party, go to an organised display. If you really must do it yourself, do it on Saturday night, or on Bonfire Night, when we're not on strike.

And please remember, we're not asking for anything, there are no demands for more or better; we're just stopping them from taking away what's ours. Firefighters didn't cause the economic crisis, and they don't get paid bonuses.

By the way, as an Orient fan, could I just say thank you very much for Tiny Cox and Romain Vincelot, both of whom are enjoying outstanding seasons at the O's this year.

Cheers,
Steve

How's young harry lee getting on at the orient ?

 

[Dan Gleeballs]

In your opinion, but not in the opinion of Dr Williams who conducted the research on behalf of the government. Williams reported that the natural age-related decline in fitness would lead to 66% of currently serving firefighters being unable to achieve a fitness standard of 42ml/kg/min VO2 max between the ages of 55-60. This is largely because fire brigades recruit from the ordinary population and not elite athletes who may expect to maintain higher fitness levels in older age.

So what's to become of these firefighters who aren't fit enough to do the job, but aren't old enough to retire under the proposed scheme? Well in 2006 the government of the day promised that there would be non-operational re-deployment posts for them. The FBU conducted a survey of all 46 fire service employers this year. Only 5 responded that they had re-deployment jobs available, a total of 16 jobs representing 0.04% of the workforce nationally. So what else?

Well the national employers have been quite clear. Firefighters over the age of 55 who fail to achieve the required fitness level will face capability dismissal with no access to their pension until the deferred pension age, which is the national pension age. Remember, these are people who joined the service expecting to be able to retire at 55 (or over 50 with 30 years service).

Firefighters pay dearly for the right to retire earlier than other workers. They currently pay over 13% of their wages in their pension scheme and their contributions make up a higher proportion of the total scheme cost than in any other public sector pension scheme. And anyway, don't we deserve a fit, healthy fire and rescue service?

There's a lot of talk on this thread about firefighters doing second jobs, like that's some kind of justification for attacking the terms and conditions of their primary employment. It's a race-to-the-bottom frame of mind that will see all of us worse off to the benefit of the ruling elite. Yes, firefighter's shift patterns may lend themselves to working a second job, but don't you think they might be more inclined to spend their off-duty time with their loved ones if they could afford to? After all, they work a 42-hour week on average, nights, weekends, public holidays etc and routinely miss birthday celebrations, Christmas at home and so on to provide a 24/7 emergency service.

Nobody enjoys withdrawing their labour, least of all those of us that work in the emergency services, but after three years of negotiation with a government that's ignored every fact we've put under their noses we don't really have a choice. The four hour stoppage in September achieved virtually no press, at least the timing of this strike means that it's gained some attention. If you want to have a safe bonfire/firework party, go to an organised display. If you really must do it yourself, do it on Saturday night, or on Bonfire Night, when we're not on strike.

And please remember, we're not asking for anything, there are no demands for more or better; we're just stopping them from taking away what's ours. Firefighters didn't cause the economic crisis, and they don't get paid bonuses.

By the way, as an Orient fan, could I just say thank you very much for Tiny Cox and Romain Vincelot, both of whom are enjoying outstanding seasons at the O's this year.

Cheers,
Steve

Post of the year. All the very best to you & Leyton Orient

 

[Steve White]

He's out on loan. Farnborough I think.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

In your opinion, but not in the opinion of Dr Williams who conducted the research on behalf of the government. Williams reported that the natural age-related decline in fitness would lead to 66% of currently serving firefighters being unable to achieve a fitness standard of 42ml/kg/min VO2 max between the ages of 55-60. This is largely because fire brigades recruit from the ordinary population and not elite athletes who may expect to maintain higher fitness levels in older age.

So what's to become of these firefighters who aren't fit enough to do the job, but aren't old enough to retire under the proposed scheme? Well in 2006 the government of the day promised that there would be non-operational re-deployment posts for them. The FBU conducted a survey of all 46 fire service employers this year. Only 5 responded that they had re-deployment jobs available, a total of 16 jobs representing 0.04% of the workforce nationally. So what else?

Well the national employers have been quite clear. Firefighters over the age of 55 who fail to achieve the required fitness level will face capability dismissal with no access to their pension until the deferred pension age, which is the national pension age. Remember, these are people who joined the service expecting to be able to retire at 55 (or over 50 with 30 years service).

Firefighters pay dearly for the right to retire earlier than other workers. They currently pay over 13% of their wages in their pension scheme and their contributions make up a higher proportion of the total scheme cost than in any other public sector pension scheme. And anyway, don't we deserve a fit, healthy fire and rescue service?

There's a lot of talk on this thread about firefighters doing second jobs, like that's some kind of justification for attacking the terms and conditions of their primary employment. It's a race-to-the-bottom frame of mind that will see all of us worse off to the benefit of the ruling elite. Yes, firefighter's shift patterns may lend themselves to working a second job, but don't you think they might be more inclined to spend their off-duty time with their loved ones if they could afford to? After all, they work a 42-hour week on average, nights, weekends, public holidays etc and routinely miss birthday celebrations, Christmas at home and so on to provide a 24/7 emergency service.

Nobody enjoys withdrawing their labour, least of all those of us that work in the emergency services, but after three years of negotiation with a government that's ignored every fact we've put under their noses we don't really have a choice. The four hour stoppage in September achieved virtually no press, at least the timing of this strike means that it's gained some attention. If you want to have a safe bonfire/firework party, go to an organised display. If you really must do it yourself, do it on Saturday night, or on Bonfire Night, when we're not on strike.

And please remember, we're not asking for anything, there are no demands for more or better; we're just stopping them from taking away what's ours. Firefighters didn't cause the economic crisis, and they don't get paid bonuses.

By the way, as an Orient fan, could I just say thank you very much for Tiny Cox and Romain Vincelot, both of whom are enjoying outstanding seasons at the O's this year.

Cheers,
Steve

Thanks for the comprehensive reply Steve.

I actually don't disagree with your fundamental right to fight to stop them taking away what is currently yours. I cant agree though, that there are not very important roles in the Fire Service that good experienced fire fighters could do between the ages of 55 and 60, if fitness issues dictated that they were not suited to front line work.

I have good mates in their 30's in peak physical condition, who spend massive amounts of their time in training, education and inspection roles. The report you quote might indicate that there are currently no roles available, but there could be with some sensible redeployment of resources.

On the footy, Cox is one of my favourite Albion players of recent times, and I've nothing but love for big Russell, so wish you chaps all the best.

 

[Steve White]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply Steve.

I actually don't disagree with your fundamental right to fight to stop them taking away what is currently yours. I cant agree though, that there are not very important roles in the Fire Service that good experienced fire fighters could do between the ages of 55 and 60, if fitness issues dictated that they were not suited to front line work.

I have good mates in their 30's in peak physical condition, who spend massive amounts of their time in training, education and inspection roles. The report you quote might indicate that there are currently no roles available, but there could be with some sensible redeployment of resources.

On the footy, Cox is one of my favourite Albion players of recent times, and I've nothing but love for big Russell, so wish you chaps all the best.

Thanks for your kind wishes.

On the subject of re-deployment you're in disagreement with the fire service national employers. They're the ones telling us that there are no jobs for firefighters who are no longer fit for operational duties. The majority of support roles like training, fire safety inspecting officers etc are no longer carried out by uniformed staff, but by non-uniformed staff or contractors. For instance all of London Fire Brigade's training has been outsourced to Babcock. The jobs just aren't there any more.

 

[Footsoldier]

Sack the lot the greedy ****ers.

 

[Steve White]

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that firefighters pay over 13% of their wages into a pension for 30 years expecting to be able to retire at 55. Expecting them to work longer for no extra reward (in fact they stand to lose a lot of money) is unfair to say the least.

 

[Steve White]

Sack the lot the greedy ****ers.

The hedge fund managers? The short-sellers and insider traders? The government that sorts out tax-breaks for their rich mates? I agree, sack 'em all.

 

[Footsoldier]

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that firefighters pay over 13% of their wages into a pension for 30 years expecting to be able to retire at 55. Expecting them to work longer for no extra reward (in fact they stand to lose a lot of money) is unfair to say the least.

No its not. They are lazy sods and half haven't attended a fire unless they attend lewis on firework night. Health and safety makes sure they dont enter buildings like the old days. If they arrive at a fire they have to fill in a risk acessmant form by which time the building has burnt down.