Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

London firefighters to strike on Bonfire Night

109 replies

longfingernails · 25/10/2010 18:49

What are they thinking?

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 25/10/2010 23:38

The 12 hour shift patterns means there is more time for prevention work, apparently.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 25/10/2010 23:35

This isn't without discussion. There have been months (probably years) of discussion.

No-one will lose their job. No-one will lose salary. No-one will lose breaks.

The change involved is 3 hours more on one shift, and 3 hours less on another.

I just don't understand why some of the more militant unions oppose every single management change, instead of being constructive.

Although I don't support striking for pay, it at least has a fairly understandable logic to it. Where is the logic in this strike?

OP posts:
bilblio · 25/10/2010 23:35

What frustrates me is when the firefighters strike other services have to pick up the tab. Last time they went on strike I was working as a support worker we had to have 2 staff doing waking nights to make sure our clients were safe, we wouldn't normally have had a waking night at all.
We'd only just got enough staff to cover the rota and by the end of the 3 weeks we were knackered.

MaMoTTaT · 25/10/2010 23:30

usually when you start a job you have an idea of what hours you'll be expected to work and sign a contract detailing them, if you don't like the contracted hours - you don't sign it.

Though I'm struggling to understand how changing the shifts to 12hr shifts is going to free up more time during the day for whatever it is they want done during the day instead Confused

MaMoTTaT · 25/10/2010 23:28

actually no I think they dismissed them all in August with the intention of re-employing them on the new contracts.

I'm kind of on the fence with strikes over pay and conditions, but I'm not sure I'd be happy being sacked and told the only way I will have a job is to sign up to the new contract with no discussion at all before hand about it.

Pan · 25/10/2010 23:27

I support most strikes. As soon as one goes on strike you lose financially. The recovery in an increase in wage, if that is the reason doesn't add up. Most strikes are about wrestling back a modicum of control over conditions, which are often H&S related in any case.

have been on strike a few times and likely will again against the 'cuts' which will have a dreadful impact on my work environment.

Original poster
longfingernails · 25/10/2010 23:27

Not quite true. They've been told they will be re-employed under the new terms. That might require, for legal reasons, sacking them and then re-hiring them immediately under the new terms, but the re-hiring bit is important.

No-one will lose their job over this.

OP posts:
MaMoTTaT · 25/10/2010 23:23

apparently they've basically been told they'll be sacked if they don't agree to the new shift changes.

Original poster
longfingernails · 25/10/2010 23:20

No, I don't support strikes for wages and conditions. I support strikes for genuine safety reasons, and no other.

If you don't like your wages and conditions, quit. If you can't quit because no-one else will employ you, then do everything you can to get new skills first. If times are hard, then don't go making outrageous demands. If times are good, then you should be able to move jobs with some effort.

OP posts:
newwave · 25/10/2010 23:15

LFN

Do you think it is right when all other avenues have been exhausted to go on strike to protect wages and conditions or should the "management" always get what they want.

Prime example, my Brothers company always had free private medical for all employees now only available to senior grades as they cannot afford it for all anymore.

OP posts:
AuraofDora · 25/10/2010 23:11

is this true, is there a link?

there was story today about woman's house burning down when fireman on strike, took 20 minutes to get there Shock

herbietea they may well get more in paypacket than armed forces but they do not get subsidised housing and they have generally good public support as they put out civilian fires

calling in the armed forces feels like we are under martial law, i hate it..

Original poster
longfingernails · 25/10/2010 23:03

Do Labour supporters automatically support any strike, no matter how flimsy the justification?

I support strikes in very narrow circumstances - where employers are being grossly negligent to the point where safety is seriously in peril. Not the Bob Crowe "safety" excuses (namely, there is an England match on), but things like aeroplane pilots being forced to fly on less fuel than they consider safe.

In general, though, we need much, much tougher strike laws in this country. Mrs Thatcher made a good start, but she didn't go nearly far enough.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 25/10/2010 22:39

Thew "new contracts" they are supposedly being screwed over according to LadyBlaBla:

Two 12 hour shifts, instead of one 9 and one 15 hour shift.

No change in overall working hours whatsoever. And for that, they strike on Guy Fawkes night.

OP posts:
Sidge · 25/10/2010 22:04

I don't think firefighters do too badly, pay wise.

I don't think they're striking over pay this time are they? Isn't it something to do with rotas?

herbietea · 25/10/2010 21:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

legostuckinmyhoover · 25/10/2010 21:35

good for the london firemen...and us.

TrinityTheTwattyRhino · 25/10/2010 19:49

I was about to jump in on the army bit too

neil was a WOMEA in the Royal Navy and he covered the big strike years ago

frasersmummy · 25/10/2010 19:45

They have chosen this date to prove how difficult their job can be

Even during strikes the firemen have never put lives at risk.. its about time they were paid what they deserve!

fm clims off her soapbox

complimentary · 25/10/2010 19:40

Pintybud. Yea, you can still 'say it' you're right. but no posters print 'Guy Fawkes' night do they?
Bonfire might can mean anything, from what I recall you burned your dear old 'guy' on the fire. Could get money for him as well, until they called it begging!

Pintybud anyone who tells me or my children not to say it, can foff! Mostly nobheads in the local council would do this!

PC nobs is the right term.

The fireman should have a right to strike, but on 'Guy Fawkes' night it may be a bit dodgy! Smile

scurryfunge · 25/10/2010 19:40

Ooops...I'm going to upset everyone tonight....I meant armed forces (services?)

Grin
nancy75 · 25/10/2010 19:40

if i remember correctly the last time we had a big fire fighters strike they still attended majour incidents?

Saltire · 25/10/2010 19:39

scurry - the RAF and Navy will cover too, not just the Army Grin

scurryfunge · 25/10/2010 19:37

I've never heard anyone protest about either name tbh.....so Guy Fawkes Night is wrong?
[thick emoticon]

The army will cover and lots of overtime for the Police too.

Saltire · 25/10/2010 19:34

If the strikes go nationwide who will they rely on to stand in and do fire cover?
..................................................................................................................oh that would be the military then!