Firemen's strike - what do you think?

[SofiaAmes]

So what does everyone think about the firemen striking? Do they deserve a 40% payrise? Should they be allowed to strike?
I'm fed up with the media spin and would love to know what real people think.

oh good someone has started a discussion on this. yes, i think they deserve a payrise. imo, what they get is far too little for risking their lives. 40% sounds like a huge rise, but this brings their pay to £30,000pa. in london (citing this because it's where i live and therefore what i know) that is not a particularly lavish salary e.g. would definitely not allow you to buy a place to live.

what are their options if they're not allowed to strike? this option has not been invoked for 25 years, after all, it's not a regular occurrence.

i do think working practices should be modified though.

Agree with Bossykate. Thorny issue though because do think that loads of other public sector workers deserve a pay rise too- nurses, midwives, teachers, social workers especially- and can't see a way to stop a slippery slope of pay claims which can't be funded easily. But still- agree that fire fighters have a strong case because they risk their lives and I also think that the right to strike is an important principle, if increasingly redundant in terms of achieving change since the evil Thatcher's reign.

I do agree that they deserve much more money for the job that they do. BUT I heard a firefighter on the radio last week, saying that his take-home pay was only £1300 per month, and he couldn't possibly pay all his bills with that, that's why he had to have another job. Well I'm sorry, but I can think of a lot of people who would love to earn that much (minimum wage is only about £700 (? ) per month for the same hours) and have the chance to have another job. I just don't think that was an argument that was going to get him much sympathy. I also think (and this is just IMO) that the main part of the "modernisation" that they are against is the changing of shift patterns so that they won't be able to have 2 jobs - I actually work with a full-time firefighter, and he also works 30 hours a week at my work. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to work a 72 hour week, and good luck to those who do, but I think it's something that has become engrained into the culture of the fire service.

I agree the firefighters deserve a payrise but is the Government really in a position to argue against it? After all they gave themselves a hefty 40% payrise last year. Also funny how its a Labour government who were all for striking a few years ago and the Tories were wrong in taking away the right to strike etc etc and now when its in their own backyard they're against it. Incidentally my dp is in the Navy and he only got a 2-3% payrise last year and he risks his life mainly on ships not up to the job, not properly manned (because there aren't enough people) and being away for long stretches at a time. He isn't allowed to strike though. The Government wonder why all these services are losing manpower at an alarming rate when morale is so low. I do know if my dp was bringing home £1300 per month and I wasn't working we wouldn't be able to live. Our bills come to that alone and no we don't have anything overly extravagant that's just utilities, council tax, water, mortgage etc. We only have a £100k mortgage but we can't afford to sell even though we would make a profit because we can't afford to buy anywhere down here (flats are going in the region of £150k).

I do think the fireservice should be paid a lot more than they are but I don't think striking is the right way to go about it. Particularly at the present time with the threat of war. Valuable troop resources are being used when they should be making preparation for war. A friend in the TA's has be called up to have all his vaccinations, so it's probably when, not if we go to war again. BIL is in the RAF and is on 24hour standby for his second gulf war/

I also think that people do go into these professions knowing full well what the salaries and propects are, ie, teachers, nurses, council workers etc. So I think it should be illegal to strike for more pay especially if you haven't been in the profession for very long, these people knew what their salary would be, why start saying it's not enough after you're in the job?

Talking about careers and futures with our teens, we have encouraged them to look at what people earn and think about whether they would be happy to earn those sort of salaries and whether they are happy with the prospects.

My DS says he doesn't want all the material things we have, like two new Mercedes, big house, lots of holidays etc. (Despite the fact it has taken years of hard work to get to this point in our lives) he wants to earn enough to keep himself and maybe a family one day, but he is empahatic that he does not want to be a big shot in the city earning megabucks.

I believe everybody should try and get as much as they can wage wise but, having worked in the fire service, I think there are other sectors that deserve a higher payrise. There are alot of firefighters who in their entire career wont have a large fire or a serious car accident or see death of any sort due to working on a shift pattern. My sister is in the amubulance service, quite high up, and has saved numerous lives and gets paid the same or slightly less than the fire service I believe. She also has to deal with threats from patients and violence. She does alot of overtime to survive, fire fighters cant do that but can get other work (although they are not surposed to moonlight). The fire service is known for not paying well, but you are only classed as semi skilled.

As for striking, no I dont think they should. They fight across the country to save fire stations from closing as it will take longer to get to emergencies then strike, not a good way to get people on their side, they are supposed to be a fire and rescue service and try and make us believe this is their first concern.

I agree broadly - all public sector workers deserve a pay rise and houses are too expensive. But how can the government give everyone huge pay rises? I think the real problem is house prices and the government should have done something about that last year. Rents should be controlled, second homes taxed more and large taxes should be brought in for people who sell within, say, 3 years of buying a house (unless the house was in a previously unfit state). A few new low-rent houses won't help. A higher top rate income tax (perhaps brought in gradually) would also help to stop the filthy rich paying over the odds and pricing everyone else out of the market.

And no, I don't really think the firefighters should be striking. I don't really understand all this public sympathy either - if it was the teachers (who have to go to university for 4 years on loans before they can take the job) the public would be up in arms against them.

i think the "freedom of choice" argument misses the point a bit, e.g. they knew what the pay was before they joined. none of us are blessed with the ability to see the future and understand exactly how certain circumstances will affect us. also, as with so many other aspects of life, this issue is a dynamic one, requiring constant renegotiation. after all the external situation, e.g. house prices, has not remained static. finally, expecting public sector workers to exist on low pay for the love of the job is a recipe for low morale and high staff attrition rates - which is exactly what we have in many public sector workforces.

Good on em!!!
said on the radio it will only be a 20p increase in council tax per household (it was going up already) (on the radio so it must be true )
They deserve it for risking their lives, i think Sept 11 showed what is really expected of them in a tragedy and lets be honest something like that could happen in the UK

I live just round the corner from a big fire, and when they have been outside striking SO many people have been honking their horns. I think there is a hell of a lot of public support for them. I can't believe how undervalued all our public sector workers are. There is a real shortage of police/teachers/firemen in our area because house prices are so high. I suppose that is the consequence of people "exercising their freedom of choice", not enough decide they want to do these low paid but integral jobs.

My brother, who only had A-levels was basically bribed to be a teacher in a large secondary school a couple of years ago. He had VERY minimal training and was paid all over the summer holidays and then launched straight into a very intimidating classroom environment. Needless to say, he didn't last long!

a big fire...STATION...I meant...obviously

I think I'd have more sypathy if they were making these claims for the higher ranks of experienced firemen, rather than those on the basic grade. I'm not simply not convinced by this claim to have "professional" status (and salary) for a rank-and-file fireman who doesn't need any particular qualifications to get the job. How many "professions" do you know where you can start at 18 and not spend years incurring student loans, and/or studying for qualifications? Yet (outside London) a trainee firefighter starts on £16,941 at 18. After 4 years that will have risen to £21,531. At that point his/her school contemporary, having spent 4 years incurring debts to qualify as a teacher, would start on £17,628. Food for thought isn't it?

There seems to be an awful lot of focus on the "headline" salary rates, while conveniently ignoring the other elements of the package where the firefighters are better off than most of us (including the vast majority of the "professionals" they aspire to join).

They get paid overtime, while many of us in other professions are expected to habitually work large amounts of unpaid overtime.

They get to retire at 55 with a 2/3 pension while most of us will be paying for our own pensions and having to work until we're 65.

Firemen get 28 days annual holiday (potentially allowing 7 periods of 12 consecutive days off in each year) - and double pay PLUS time-in-lieu if they work on a bank holiday. How many of us would love that?

The much talked about 42-hour average week includes some time spent eating (and even sleeping which would get most of us dismissed!) for example, where most of us have do that in our own time - it doesn't get counted in our working week.

Once you start looking at things that way - the amount a firefighter gets paid doesn't really look so bad.

Heck, after a degree and fifteen years experience in a professional job my takehome pay, per hour that I actually work and after I've paid pension contributions, etc is often actually less than that of an 18 year old newly recruited fireman!

So only gradualtes should earn lots of money?

Sorry GillW, my fur rose then. I'm a graduate myself. But I don't see why that necessarily entitles me to higher salary than a fireman. I chose to go to university, my degree was in no way vocational, and the best jobs that I was offered for years were in bloody Media Sales....yuk! How useful.

It's probably those on the basic grade who are more likely to be expected to enter a burning building and carry people out, GillW. The more experienced higher ups are probably safely ensconsed in their lovely fire chief cars.

If it weren?t for the fire service, my dh would not be alive (fire 9 years ago) so I will support them to the ends of the earth.

As to other public sector workers also deserving pay rises - of course they do. So how about a tax on the ridiculously overpaid non-essential workers in the land (Beckham et al spring to mind) to pay for the essential ones, who put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

Oh...and if such a massive portion of the public could support the miners years ago, then surely they would support the firemen now.

Its the way of the worl isn't it!

I used to think Labour was all about redistribution of wealth. Ho hum

Scummy, from experience higher rank fire officers do muck in, so to speak, on jobs.

Yes, I expect they do Joe and of course planning is needed to keep everyone as safe as possible. Was just taking slight issue with the thought that firepeople should only be rewarded if very experienced. Sorry if it came across as flippant!

I suppose i would be more into having my wealth redistributed if it was going to the firemen/policemen/teachers rather than to the politicians and purposefully unemployed (ie my dh's ex's who are perfectly able to work,but would rather live off the govt.).
I think it's awfully hard to put a price on risking your life on a daily basis. I certainly wouldn't do it even for 30,000. I think I would prefer to have a firemen not have to work 2 jobs so that he will be sure to be well rested when he comes to save me from my burning house.
Having seen firemen at work close-up a few years ago when the house next door to me burnt halfway to the ground, I am in total awe of how hard firemen work and how dangerous their job is (and how absolutely gorgeous their bodies are).
In the usa by the way, firemen make a heck of a lot more than they do here and no one seems to resent it. I don't know about here, but in the us they have to pass pretty grueling physical (and intelligence) tests to become a fireman and they have ongoing testing for fitness.
I was talking about the strike with someone recently who was pretty versed in labor matters and they were saying that the real crime is in negotiators for the firemen's unions who let their salaries fall so far behind the cost of living over the last 25 years.
I'm off to my local firestation to see if there's anything I can do to help them.
Alibubbles, I forget, how old is your ds. I'd be very surprised if he didn't miss all his "luxuries" when he finally moves out on his own.

Scummy I think I should of added, of course some dont

I believe the problem is that 25 years ago when they had the previous strike, they wanted their pay linked in with the average worker's pay. But, instead it was linked with the average MANUAL worker's pay - at the time this seemed good, as this included miners and ship builders, and these industries were pretty healthy. But, when these industries went into decline, so did the salaries, and that is why the firemen's salary have not kept up.

Having listened to the Today programme this morning, and read about it, I think the fault now lies with the employers - it seems they offered this 16%, just assuming the Government could find the hundreds of millions of pounds, but also couldn't tell them exactly how much it would be - basically asking them to write a blank cheque to get them out of a hole!

Bobbins - my point is that entering the fire service is just about the best paying job there is for an 18 year old in this country. When student nurses are receiving a pittance during their training, and those who will go on to become teachers are running up debts to do so, then comparing their situation to that of the firemen makes it seem to me that there are many others who are at least equally deserving. But, what a coincidence, most recruits to the fire service are male, and most student nurses are female, so that's all right then?

One other quick point - there are 30-40 applicants for every vacant position in the fire service, so it isn't one of the services losing manpower through poor pay.