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.

For soare read spare!

Must be cracking up tonight - I've misspelt sector too!

funny how people seem to think that the fact they have second jobs is a reason not to pay them more, rather than thinking that the reason they have second jobs is because they're not paid enough...

as i said before, i do believe they should modernise their working practices.

I don't think the second jobs thing is a reason not to pay them more - I DO think the fact that they have SO much of the week off is a reason to change thier working conditions before giving them a pay rise! They can't have it both ways - big rise AND half the week off to earn yet more money !

bayleaf, I think nurses should get a raise too. I think that far too much money is spent on paying "unwed" mothers to have children. My dh has just told me that his ex (the evil one) is pregnant with her 5th child by yet another father (none of her children share a father). She lives in a 4 bedroom council house on benefits and despite being an able bodied 31 year old has never worked a day in her life.
Rhiannon, perhaps "your" fireman has a wife who has a well paying job, or rich parents or...etc. Just because he has a large house does not mean he is well paid.
I agree with bossykate, the fact that firemen have hours (they still work 48 hours a week, just all squished together) that allow them to have two jobs is not a reason to not pay them more. They shouldn't have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet. Their poor families!

As far as I can see it, the main sticking point for the FBU is the potential changes required in shift work, and in particular the ability of firefighters to retain their second jobs. The Bain interim report outlined ways for a pay rise to be funded, and an introduction of a competence based remuneration program which would reward individuals on the basis of the work performed - ie would load more money to those firefighters who did frequently put their lives at risk.

The fact that the FBU have not being willing to participate in this review, and have basically dismissed the entire report practically without comment (it seems to have been dismissed by one sentence in a FBU press release) does make me wonder as to how serious they are in the modernisation of working practices. I would be more sympathetic if they formally noted their objections, so that the public etc could see the areas of disagreement.

As GillW noted, it is hard to make a real comparison of what equivalent salaries are due to various shift allowances, leave & pension benefits. But the Bain report would mean that a qualified firefighter would get £23,960 and a leading firefighter £25,656 (in London these numbers become £28,268 and £29,964 repectively). Out of interest what do those of you who feel that this is not enough, think a suitable salary should be? I know that there are plenty of people in London who earn more than this, but I'm not sure that it is the majority. And these figures are still above the national average.

As for whether to strike or not, to not give the Deputy PM a few further hours to deliberate on an offer made in the middle of the might, but to still go ahead with an 8 day strike seems a bit unreasonable - after all they could have waited for another day and still had a seven day strike.

BTW I am not in favour of outlawing such a strike, I just feel that progress was being made, and as offers of payrises were being backdated the current strike is a bit premature.

That's interesting MiriamW. And I wonder what their average age is? I was earning less than that throughout my twenties and early thirties, and only took a big pay jump when I was 36-37 - and now I'm back down again! My dh also earns less than this, yet we aren't starving and don't need second jobs. And we live in London!

Mind you with house prices as they are they'd have to earn around £70,000 to get a mortgage to buy a house from scratch. But I don't think anyone's advocating that.

And the leader of the FBU has a salary of £82,000!!! I agree that they could have given John Prescott and the government a bit more time to think over the offer - as I understand it, they said 'you'll need to give us some extra money, and agree now, but we can't tell you how much!!!'

Apparenly he doesn't - It's fifty somethng - the rest was pension contributions and some other stuff - the Sunday Times ahd to publish an apology yesterday.

As far as I can see it, the main sticking point for the FBU is the potential changes required in shift work, and in particular the ability of firefighters to retain their second jobs. The Bain interim report outlined ways for a pay rise to be funded, and an introduction of a competence based remuneration program which would reward individuals on the basis of the work performed - ie would load more money to those firefighters who did frequently put their lives at risk.

The fact that the FBU have not being willing to participate in this review, and have basically dismissed the entire report practically without comment (it seems to have been dismissed by one sentence in a FBU press release) does make me wonder as to how serious they are in the modernisation of working practices. I would be more sympathetic if they formally noted their objections, so that the public etc could see the areas of disagreement.

As GillW noted, it is hard to make a real comparison of what equivalent salaries are due to various shift allowances, leave & pension benefits. But the Bain report would mean that a qualified firefighter would get £23,960 and a leading firefighter £25,656 (in London these numbers become £28,268 and £29,964 repectively). Out of interest what do those of you who feel that this is not enough, think a suitable salary should be? I know that there are plenty of people in London who earn more than this, but I'm not sure that it is the majority. And these figures are still above the national average.

As for whether to strike or not, to not give the Deputy PM a few further hours to deliberate on an offer made in the middle of the might, but to still go ahead with an 8 day strike seems a bit unreasonable - after all they could have waited for another day and still had a seven day strike.

BTW I am not in favour of outlawing such a strike, I just feel that progress was being made, and as offers of payrises were being backdated the current strike is a bit premature.

I just took a leaflet form our local fireman, to see what they say. Was stunned to see that they earn 22k once training (of 4WEEKS0 is completed. So at an age of 18 they can take home a bloody good wage. beats everyone I knew at 18. The sticking point is then thta this wage only goes up with inflation and that an older fireman with a wife and kiddies to support only earnes this as well.

But seing as the workload doesn't increase, why should they be paid more. They could always lower the starting salary and put the money into the older lot....But no-one seems to have suggested it. Funny that.

Aaand, as for 'putting their lives in danger'
a) they are trained, so they don't do that
b) fire-fighters love the buzz and danger or they wouldn't have picked the job!!!!

No sympathy here, not now that I've spent a weekend on a children's ward and seen the smiles and upbeat cheeriness of nurses and therapists in the face of desperately sick children...not that I'm biased or anything!!!!

Lil, IKWYM about younger earners, it doesn't sound too bad. But I think here in London once you've got a family the wages are very poor. But the same goes for teachers, healthcare professionals, bus drivers, hairdressers....blah blah

Bundle, I am surprised market forces don't come into this. I mean if you want to be a fireman, hairdresser etc and its too expensive in London, then you should move outside London shouldn't you? Then, a lack of firemen, hairdressers etc would lead to the wages being offered to be raised. No need to strike, afterall.

..that's what happens in the private sector isn't it?? why should the public sector be different, AND they get pay related pensions - worth their weight in gold!!...whoa, rant coming on, will stop there.

Yes Lil, I was surprised to read that their penion is a final salary scheme equal to 2/3 - very generous indeed.

I too wonder why newly recruited firemen are paid nearly as much as more experienced ones. Doesn't give much motivation for staying in the force and using that training. Unless it is so accepted that firemen will have another job outside the force?

Don't think market forces alone will effect a quick change in pay - looking around at other professions like nursing.

it should Lil, but many of the recent testimonies I've read are from firefighters who live well outside of London (one I think was in somewhere mad like Bristol) - eg 3 hours away in Essex, to afford a mortgage and just thrash themselves with an awful commute. I saw a piece on the news the other day about retained firefighters, who obviously don't do it for the money and have a no-strike clause. they said the small communities they live in appreciate what they do, and that's what motivates them. even those of us who don't personally know a firefighter and live in a city like London appreciate what they do - but I don't support the kind of action they're currently taking I'm afraid.

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if I am repeating points already made, but I don't want firemen to have more than one job in order to make a decent living! I don't want firemen who have worked for 40+ hours in a week to go out and drive cabs to make ends meet - it concerns me on health and safety grounds.

Lil, just because someone is trained to deal with dangerous situations does not mean that their lives won't be at risk, the training just helps them assess the risks better and in some instances reduce the risk but not remove the risk altogether.

Two thirds of 22 - 25.000 does not seem like a huge pension when you spend your working life saving lives, often by putting your own life at risk.

There, feel much better for that

I do agree Sis that the salaries for experienced firefighters are miserly and so therefore are the pensions in terms of absolute numbers. Certainly not suggesting they are well looked after - just that there are huge numbers of badly paid employees out there (particularly women) in both the public and private sector for whom pension provisions are substantially worse.

agree Bells, the majhority of us, thanks to a certain Gordon Brown now have to rely on the stockmarkey money purchase sheme for our final pensions. A massive gamble with our futures. One which is NOT paying right now. I'd be VERY pleased to be on 2/3 of my salary, certainly must be a weight off their minds, but I guess the firemen don't appreciate what a bonus a pay related pension is.
Tigermoth, nursing is v. ifferent to firefighting. There are not 40 applicants to every 1 position - there is less than 1.

Hmm so thinking about it Tigermoth you're right, market forces don't work as the govnt is just recruiting outside the UK for nurses and teachers instead of putting up their pay!!!!

It does seem ironic that the soldiers doing firefighting duties are actually safer than if they were doing their normal job but earn less. I don't want to attack firemen either for the work they do or as people, but their wages don't seem that low to me (esp if true that a fireman in London will earn over £28,000 under the rejected proposals) and they can do other work as well. Of course, it's always nice to get more, but most people don't. In my twenties I earned much less than this - my dh earns less in his 40s. Yes, we're not risking our lives, I admit that, but to put the risk in perspective, building is a far more dangerous job. I think they, along with teachers, lecturers and nurses (for example) are not highly paid but, and I'm no economist, would a series of 16+% payrises really damage the economy with awful consequences? It seems quite likely. I don't know what the answer is. Probably a much lower settlement. I think the strikes seem a little irresponsible and impulsive, though I do support the right to strike as a principle. Their pension is a huge benefit - and I speak as someone with money in Equitable Life and am now resigned to a poverty stricken old age, with a huge fear of student fees.

Snap re Equitable Life, Aloha. DH's compnay pension is partially with them. Gloom.

Wrt recruiting nurses from abroad. I don't know where they are planning to recruit this time but to take nurses from developing countries such as Sierra Leone, which happened before, is downright wrong, I think. These countries need their nurses themselves. Britain should do something about tempting UK nurses such as my niece back into the profession before they look abroad. I was talking to someone last week whose dd is training to be an NHS manager and is being funded to work in New Zealand for 3 months. My niece handed in her notice after a manager came onto her gynae ward, walked down the ward and told her which treatment each women would be permitted, irrespective of clinical need. What a disgrace.

did anyone see the tv piece on firefighters in France? they get paid less than ours, are members of the armed forces and are fully-trained paramedics. they are held in great esteem by the public but obviously don't do it for the money!