Firefighter Strike

cambsno said:
I can't remember where I saw it, but I did read fatality at work stats and firemen was not that bad. A quick search says that fisherman do the most dangerous job, but also read that lorry driving is more dangerous than you think.
Click to expand...

Someone once described it as lies, damn lies and statistics. Which just reading them with no understanding is.

If you have a dangerous job, performed by reasonably fit, well trained and properly equipped people then the injury stats will be less then if you had the same job performed by unfit, poorly trained and poorly equipped folks. Doesn't mean the task itself is any less or more dangerous
 
Ruffy said:
You have just hit the nail on its head, at last......

This is the whole point, their is no such thing as ill health retirement really, so if you end up with arthritis, bad knee or any other kind of illness other than general Vo2 input/output then your going to be sacked, simple as that !

And a quick question for everyone, god forbid that a member of your family were to become trapped in a house fire, would you want a 60-65 year old person to come along and attempt a rescue, one where they may have to push their limits a little higher to achieve the task ? Or maybe at a complicated RTC where prolonged periods of use of extremely heavy cutting gear is required to extricate your family member ?

Think of the first 60-65 year old person that comes into your head, would you want them coming to save you or somebody else ?

Okay, I guess I should just up sticks, throw my career down the pan because someone came along and drastically wants to change something that I had originally signed up for...that was to work till I'm 55 not 65
Click to expand...

Me for one am 100% behind you in this one. Best of luck to you all (I think you'll need it as this Government ain't for turning).
 
Personally, I back the firefighter strike.

I work in the NHS and we've already been screwed over several numerous times since the politicians decided to use it as a football.

Whilst I agree that we are generally living longer, we still spend most of our time above the age of 60 requiring help and assistance. The only people I've seen who can run around at 90 like they did at 60 are those in affluent areas where they've had excellent lifestyles. Not everyone is going to remain at the same fitness level until the age of 65 - genetics plays a part in this too. Why should they be sacked at the age of 60 because they aren't in the same physical condition as when they were 30?

I completely hate the way the Govt can unilaterally change conditions without negotiation and expect us to swallow it. I love my job but either I stick with it or I emigrate like others have done.
 
They do a brilliant job, in often difficult and dangerous circumstances (both my father and my brother were firemen); however I can't personally support strike action which could cost actual lives. Whatever cover is provided during industial action will not be as highly skilled as those striking and errors could be made.
 
RichardtheSane said:
It isn't about the retirement age itself. It is the fact that they will not be able to keep their job due to retirement age.

I know I can do my job until I retire, I work at a computer. But a lot of firefighters will not be able to work in their job until retirement age. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

This is the point ^ reading elsewhere that 25% of firemen between 50-54 are no longer fit to do the job, when you go above 54 it rises to 66% who are no longer fit enough.

I don't think there's a hard figure for how much an individual would get retiring early. It depends on length of service so it's very possible for someone to be out of a job and living on reduced means and government benefits for 10 years before they get full pension, through no fault of their own. You can't say "get another job", only the lucky few can do that and you can't say stay in the job till you're 60 because that will kill people.
 
Ruffy said:
You have just hit the nail on its head, at last......

This is the whole point, their is no such thing as ill health retirement really, so if you end up with arthritis, bad knee or any other kind of illness other than general Vo2 input/output then your going to be sacked, simple as that !
Okay, I guess I should just up sticks, throw my career down the pan because someone came along and drastically wants to change something that I had originally signed up for...that was to work till I'm 55 not 65
Click to expand...

Vo2??? Whats that?

Have to say that I am a bit more sympathetic than at the start now that has been explained. Trouble is you have teachers and other unions moaning so it just sounds like another me me me strike.

That said i am not a fan of strikes... peoples lives could be at risk... you asked us to imagine a 60yo trying to rescue a loved one... what about imaging a child dying because firemen are on strike and the people covering dont have the right skills.
 
For info I've also read that during the strike which could be up to 28,000 fire fighters, 12,000 retained fire fighters would step in and some other contractors. There's also an agreement that in the case of a major emergency strikers would go back to work.
 
Seems that the usual suspects are against all strikes regardless!!!

Good luck to the fire service personnel. I hope it makes a difference.
 
You can only kick people in the balls so many times, then they realise it hurts and start retaliating.

This goverment are no better or worse than previous ones, so lets not get political about it. Country is skint and they need to save some money. There are far better ways of making saving than buggering about with peoples pensions, half way through thier career.

It is *******s.

I don`t like the firemen striking, but fully understand why you are doing so.
 
fracster said:
You can only kick people in the balls so many times, then they realise it hurts and start retaliating.

This goverment are no better or worse than previous ones, so lets not get political about it. Country is skint and they need to save some money. There are far better ways of making saving than buggering about with peoples pensions, half way through thier career.

It is *******s.

I don`t like the firemen striking, but fully understand why you are doing so.
Click to expand...

Very sensible....personally I'd say that such changes should only apply to new starters that way they are entering the service eyes open...that said how many non operational roles are there that personal who are no longer fit for active service could be redeployed on so that they remain in employed up to the standard retirement age?
 
fracster said:
You can only kick people in the balls so many times, then they realise it hurts and start retaliating.

This goverment are no better or worse than previous ones, so lets not get political about it. Country is skint and they need to save some money. There are far better ways of making saving than buggering about with peoples pensions, half way through thier career.

It is *******s.

I don`t like the firemen striking, but fully understand why you are doing so.
Click to expand...

I like others are 100% behind their action, but like Fracster has pointed out the country is skint. My suggestion would be to start at the top with our MP's (600) ? we could start with a level playing field and get them to pay what we all have to pay in the real world, so for a start they could start paying the following:

1.1.1 What you can claim
 Rent and the associated costs for a registered property in the London Area or in your constituency (or within 20 miles of your constituency boundary)
 Costs associated with your accommodation only – this generally applies only to MPs who own the property in which they stay
 A loan for a deposit to be paid at the start of a tenancy. See section 1.1.4 of this document for further information
 Removal costs incurred when you move into rented accommodation - this must be claimed from the Contingency Fund
 A supplement of up to £2,425 a year for each dependant you care for. You will need to certify that the dependant routinely lives with you. Please refer to section 4.22 of the Scheme for further information and eligibility.
The associated costs you can claim for are:
 utility bills (gas, electricity, other fuel and water)
 council tax
 ground rent and service charges
 home contents insurance
 buildings insurance (only for MPs who own the property where they live – claiming under 4.9c of the Scheme)
 the purchase, installation and maintenance of routine security measures
 the installation of a landline telephone, the line rental and the usage charges
 the installation of a broadband connection and the usage charges
 connection to a basic, free-to-air TV package
 the purchase of a TV licence

Guidance for MPs’ Business Costs and Expenses
Surely that would save a few pennies for a start, wouldn't it?
 
Splidge said:
I like others are 100% behind their action, but like Fracster has pointed out the country is skint. My suggestion would be to start at the top with our MP's (600) ? we could start with a level playing field and get them to pay what we all have to pay in the real world, so for a start they could start paying the following:
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is you want to attract politicians that are independently wealthy so don't really need the salary and expenses?

Are you absolutely sure that's what you want?
 
onomatopoeia said:
So what you're saying is you want to attract politicians that are independently wealthy so don't really need the salary and expenses?

Are you absolutely sure that's what you want?
Click to expand...

An mp is not actually that well paid. If you think that they help run the country yet get approx £70k. Many teachers or mangers get more, hey, even tube drivers are on £50k!

The PM is on £150k, crazy when you think of the responsibility. If anything we need to increase pay but take away a lot of the expenses to make it more transparent.

Could older firemen not do desk jobs/training/fire safety in schools etc...
 
onomatopoeia said:
So what you're saying is you want to attract politicians that are independently wealthy so don't really need the salary and expenses?

Are you absolutely sure that's what you want?
Click to expand...

No! what i want is for our politicians to pay their dues like the rest of us so they can start by paying what they can claim for! which is why I quoted from the IPSA as to what they can claim, and we mere mortals can't.

Frank
 
cambsno said:
An mp is not actually that well paid. If you think that they help run the country yet get approx £70k. Many teachers or mangers get more, hey, even tube drivers are on £50k!

The PM is on £150k, crazy when you think of the responsibility. If anything we need to increase pay but take away a lot of the expenses to make it more transparent.

Could older firemen not do desk jobs/training/fire safety in schools etc...
Click to expand...

Well if an MP doesnt like the pay & conditions he can always get a different job or is that just a line we quote for fireman, police officers and teachers.

I dont see many MPs moaning, I wonder why, consider all their fringe benefits.

But back to the OP, I support their strike 100% regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I'm no communist but its about time the working class (that's you, me and anyone that works for a living - not the current media definition, no work, no pay - you are working class - simple) actually banded together and supported each other against the changing of T&C's for existing workers that have a contract, it wasnt what they signed up for years ago and to change it before retirement or voluntarily leaving is wrong.
By all means create new T&Cs for new staff if things are too costly to fund but existing contracts should be honoured.

Matt
 
cambsno said:
An mp is not actually that well paid. If you think that they help run the country yet get approx £70k. Many teachers or mangers get more,... snip
Click to expand...


Average pay for a qualified teacher is 30k and they probably work just as hard as MPs but without the fringe benefits.
 
I saw an advert for an Aldi store manager last week... £60k a year!!!!


I hate strikes, but sometimes a line has to be drawn. Not sure what else they can do really.
 
cambsno said:
I can't remember where I saw it, but I did read fatality at work stats and firemen was not that bad. A quick search says that fisherman do the most dangerous job, but also read that lorry driving is more dangerous than you think.
Click to expand...

really - i would have thought that combat infantryman and bomb disposal officer would come higher - in terms of fatalitiy at work as a percentage of those so employed.
 
I am glad that I started this thread as it has created a good discussion as well as made a few aware of the purposed changes and some of the facts behind our strike, I am pleasantly surprised by the support from on here, I knew that not everyone would agree.

I am going to post a link with a few more details for you to read, not looking to change people's minds...more to educate !

This will be my last post in this thread as this is something that is very close to my heart however I will be keeping a close eye on it :)

http://www.fbu.org.uk/wp-content/up...ions-LEAFLET-A5-X-4pp-NEW-27_6_13-LOW-RES.pdf
 
big soft moose said:
really - i would have thought that combat infantryman and bomb disposal officer would come higher - in terms of fatalitiy at work as a percentage of those so employed.
Click to expand...

You will probably find conflicting reports.
 
We are slowly heading back in time.


People can't afford to buy a house

People slave all week to barely buy food

The rich get richer, the poor getting poorer. The greatest trick with it all is they have got the people to blame each other for it.

The public are so divided and swallow the spin fed to them so easily that while we head back to workhouses of the 1800's we are so busy arguing about I have it worse than you, we don't see what's coming, until its too late.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the firemen and they should stand up for what they signed up to do, and that was work in a very dangerous job till they retired at a sensible age where the toll on the body could not take it any more with a healthy pension to say thank you for rescuing and saving hundreds of lives in their career.
If more people stood up for what they believe in then things might be better, no body ever wants to strike and put lives on the line but sometimes that is the only action certain people understand.

I really hope it works out for you guys and you have my full support.
 
ding76uk said:
We are slowly heading back in time.


People can't afford to buy a house

People slave all week to barely buy food

The rich get richer, the poor getting poorer. The greatest trick with it all is they have got the people to blame each other for it.

The public are so divided and swallow the spin fed to them so easily that while we head back to workhouses of the 1800's we are so busy arguing about I have it worse than you, we don't see what's coming, until its too late.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was trying to make, Us and Them, except too many of Us are with Them until its too late.
 
SpikeK6 said:
I agree with the firemen and they should stand up for what they signed up to do, and that was work in a very dangerous job till they retired at a sensible age where the toll on the body could not take it any more with a healthy pension to say thank you for rescuing and saving hundreds of lives in their career.
Click to expand...
Firemen have to maintain a level of fitness, but that's not to the levels of a world class athlete. Take regular exercise and the body can quite easily continue to be fit and active, it won't be worn out or unable to operate. If they don't do this their bodies will already be unfit long before 55.
 
and you don't think that the constant going into burning building, anti social hours, physical exertions etc might take a certain toll on the body ?

its very easy to be cavalier about the issues if the nearest you get to a house fire is your tv screen
 
nilagin said:
Firemen have to maintain a level of fitness, but that's not to the levels of a world class athlete. Take regular exercise and the body can quite easily continue to be fit and active, it won't be worn out or unable to operate. If they don't do this their bodies will already be unfit long before 55.
Click to expand...

There's a very good reason that historically the Armed Foces, Police and Fire Services have all worked their employment policy around someone retiring from frontline, active service in their mid fourties. That's because the requirements of the job place a terrific demand on the body.

It isn't a question of staying 'fit' in the civie sense, it's the day to day toll on the body that knackers it. I did ten years in uniform, six in the TA and four as a regular, and even as a result of that short period my body still suffered minor trauma that is irreparable. I'm talking about wear and tear of joints, muscle injuries, ligaments etc etc.

No one would expect the majority of professional athletes in contact sport to last much beyond their fourth decade and still be capable on being on top form. Exactly the same applies in the roles above.

As for the traditional route of promotion or a desk job - well the promotion is still available, but the desk jobs are being farmed out to civies to 'cut costs'.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
really - i would have thought that combat infantryman and bomb disposal officer would come higher - in terms of fatalitiy at work as a percentage of those so employed.
Click to expand...
In fact, it's farmers who have the highest number of fatal and serious injuries per capita, and their average wage is only £12K, most have no pension at all and their working conditions must be among the worst...

Personally I have an enormous amount of sympathy for firefighters, successive governments have all made dramatic cuts to the level of service they are able to provide and have worked hard at eroding their benefits. And I have a lot of sympathy for the rules about fitness and fully accept that government statements that firefighters who are no longer able to do the physical work can move to back office jobs are unlikely to be true as the back office jobs just don't exist. I remember, years ago, a fire safety officer was forced to resign because he could no longer see well enough without wearing glasses, wearing glasses wasn't a problem in his particular job but as he could be transferred to firefighting duties at at point, he no longer met the criteria so had to go.

But I don't feel that their union helps, over the years they have fought every single proposed change, good or bad, and may be seen my many as reactionary and unreasonable.
 
big soft moose said:
and you don't think that the constant going into burning building, anti social hours, physical exertions etc might take a certain toll on the body ?

its very easy to be cavalier about the issues if the nearest you get to a house fire is your tv screen
Click to expand...

I've worked anti social hours, 12hour shifts, 16hr shifts, lifting heavy lumps of steel, I started work at 16, I played 5 a side football and did Karate up to mid twenties, when I started weight training, not just to get bigger and stronger, but using it as a cardio exercise. I'm now 51, probably fitter now than I was when I was playing football, I'm in the gym before work and I have no intention of slowing down and my body is showing no signs of needing to. That's day after day, 5-7 days a week. How often does a fireman have to put out fires?
If you take steps to take proper care of your body, it shouldn't drop off that much. In this link provided by Ruffy
http://www.fbu.org.uk/wp-content/up...ions-LEAFLET-A5-X-4pp-NEW-27_6_13-LOW-RES.pdf
It says 66% of existing firemen won't be fit enough by 60, if that's true, I'd hazzard a guess they won't even be fit enough by 50.
 
nilagin said:
I've worked anti social hours, 12hour shifts, 16hr shifts, lifting heavy lumps of steel, I started work at 16, I played 5 a side football and did Karate up to mid twenties, when I started weight training, not just to get bigger and stronger, but using it as a cardio exercise. I'm now 51, probably fitter now than I was when I was playing football, I'm in the gym before work and I have no intention of slowing down and my body is showing no signs of needing to. That's day after day, 5-7 days a week. How often does a fireman have to put out fires?If you take steps to take proper care of your body, it shouldn't drop off that much. In this link provided by Ruffy
http://www.fbu.org.uk/wp-content/up...ions-LEAFLET-A5-X-4pp-NEW-27_6_13-LOW-RES.pdf
It says 66% of existing firemen won't be fit enough by 60, if that's true, I'd hazzard a guess they won't even be fit enough by 50.
Click to expand...

seriously ??????

The clue in in the name of the job
 
Garry Edwards said:
In fact, it's farmers who have the highest number of fatal and serious injuries per capita, ...
Click to expand...

I think that Fisheries & Agric are not far off each other Garry, to the point that they are often lumped into stats together, especially some of the older figures from the Ministry of A&F.

Construction comes fairly close after that and the Forces didn't really even feature until post 2005! :)
 
big soft moose said:
seriously ??????

The clue in in the name of the job
Click to expand...
Yes seriously, just because it's their job title, it doesn't mean they do it day in day out. If you think they do, then you really must be naïve.
 
and of course the forces stat is distorted by a number of REMF jobs that never get close to being dangerous.. I'm not sure there's a stat in the survey for combat deployed troops only.
 
nilagin said:
Yes seriously, just because it's their job title, it doesn't mean they do it day in day out. If you think they do, then you really must be naïve.
Click to expand...

so what do you think they do day in day out ? Outside of television drama they don't sit around playing pool and eating donuts

House fires, car fires, car crashes , chemical spills, various other stuff needing their specialist skills (cliff rescue is quite common round here) and other 999 emergencies make up the lions share of what they do... its not about school visits and getting cats out of trees..

asking if firemen regularly put out fires is a bit like asking if train drivers regularly drive trains

Brigade stats suggest circa 59,000 house fires per year in the uK - which resolves to about 160 per day,
There are about 50 fire and rescue services so that would suggest that each service deals with three per day and that's just one element of what they do (theres also industrial fires, countryside fires, car fires and all the other stuff I listed above)
 
Last edited:
Lynch me if you like but I wonder if its not already been said, if your child/loved one was rescued how many would change their minds
 
big soft moose said:
asking if firemen regularly put out fires is a bit like asking if train drivers regularly drive trains
Click to expand...
No it's not. I think it's you that has been fooled by what you have seen on tv if you think that is a good comparison.:cuckoo:
Why don't you give up your job and become a fireman, instead of keep suggesting others do the same?

I'm still awaiting your perfect solution to provide the finances to maintain their pension terms without it impacting anyone else.
 
I think unless you are a firefighter doing the job full time NO ONE can dis what they do day in day out and how it affects their bodies.

I am the first to admit I am not fit, never have been and never will be but i have seen better people fitness wise than me suffer in the building industry. Just because one person runs umpteen miles a week and goes to the gym for hours on end and can stay fit all their lives does not mean that the person standing next to him can do the same. So by some merit a firefighter keeping fit is possible to retire and still do the job at 60 years old but I bet for every one fire fighter that is like that there will be 20-30 that cannot.

Conditions have got better, equipment has got better over the years but that does make the stress or the pressure on the body any less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top