Firefighter Strike

publicity - the very fact that we (and lots of other people across the country) are having this discussion, media exposure etc
 
Publicity isn't everything. I bet there were probably thousands, possibly even millions in the country totally oblivious to it all. All that's happened is someone somewhere has saved some money on half a days wages for several thousand firefighters.
 
All that's happened is someone somewhere has saved some money on half a days wages for several thousand firefighters.
Click to expand...

I'd dispute that was all that happened. It was discussed in my office on the day it happened, and by people who's normal interest in the news doesn't go beyond who's in Strictly stuck in the jungle while dancing.

BSM is right we're discussing it here too, and getting the facts behind the changes to the Fire Service Pension changes, not Government spin, or to use my old trades technical term, lying.

The simple facts here are, that you put your faith, life and freedoms in the hands of 4 groups of people. The Fire Service, Ambulance Service, Police and armed forces. Yet the current Government are shafting those 4 groups. In the case of the forces reducing their numbers and kit to the point where they are almost ineffective. The Police have been royally shafted, on pay, pensions and conditions. The same with the Ambulance Service. Fire service are currently being bent over in preparation for a shafting.

Now all of that is fine, until suddenly they ain't there any more, because no one wants to do those jobs due to the poor pay and conditions. Suddenly those that have to run towards, while the rest of you run away aren't. At which point, the apparent savings cease to mean much.

As for the saving, it was more than that in Surrey, where the Local Authority docked an entire days pay for 4 hours of strike.
 
Bernie174 said:
I'd dispute that was all that happened. It was discussed in my office on the day it happened, and by people who's normal interest in the news doesn't go beyond who's in Strictly stuck in the jungle while dancing.

BSM is right we're discussing it here too, and getting the facts behind the changes to the Fire Service Pension changes, not Government spin, or to use my old trades technical term, lying.
Click to expand...
And to put it bluntly none of that will mean a flying f...:shrug:
And unions have never lied I suppose to make themselves still worthwhile. In my experience unions will make things seem worse than what they really are, just to "rally the troops".
 
nilagin said:
And to put it bluntly none of that will mean a flying f...:shrug: And unions have never lied I suppose to make themselves still worthwhile. In my experience unions will make things seem worse than what they really are, just to "rally the troops".
Click to expand...

Agree, unions always challenge and obstruct change, so when the moan about something and call for strike it's "hear we go again". I for one will always be against unions because they cry wolf too many times. They need to be more constructive and open. Oh, and the union leaders are all hypocrites on the same packages they moan the fat cats get!
 
cambsno said:
Agree, unions always challenge and obstruct change, so when the moan about something and call for strike it's "hear we go again". I for one will always be against unions because they cry wolf too many times. They need to be more constructive and open. Oh, and the union leaders are all hypocrites on the same packages they moan the fat cats get!
Click to expand...

So what's the alternative for workers who won't simply roll over and accept each shafting they get? Or is that what everyone is meant to do now?
 
cambsno said:
Agree, unions always challenge and obstruct change, so when the moan about something and call for strike it's "hear we go again". I for one will always be against unions because they cry wolf too many times. They need to be more constructive and open. Oh, and the union leaders are all hypocrites on the same packages they moan the fat cats get!
Click to expand...

LOL :D
 
Ah but without the unions they wouldn't have got use of the office chair at weekends and Mr Hawkins daughter to be phased in by 2022
 
ding76uk said:
So what's the alternative for workers who won't simply roll over and accept each shafting they get? Or is that what everyone is meant to do now?
Click to expand...

Just be more open to ideas and change. Yes, protect workers but don't just disagree with everything management do. Both should truly engage.
 
cambsno said:
Just be more open to ideas and change. Yes, protect workers but don't just disagree with everything management do. Both should truly engage.
Click to expand...

I think the bold bit is very true, but thats a two way street. And wouldn't, for example, mean the government of the day trying to generate large divisions and maybe being a little more open
 
cambsno said:
Agree, unions always challenge and obstruct change, so when the moan about something and call for strike it's "hear we go again". I for one will always be against unions because they cry wolf too many times. They need to be more constructive and open. Oh, and the union leaders are all hypocrites on the same packages they moan the fat cats get!
Click to expand...

Sugest strongly you lok at the history of the Trade Union Movement both pre the formation of the Trade Union Congress in 1868 when those fighting to form unions to protect workers from the poor worki.g conditions and faced being murdered for trying to get better conditions and in the years after to the current day where unions are deprecated by the "owners" who seek to kill off unions.

Your comments suggest you may need to acquaint yourself with how things have changed since the 80s for the detriment of thw workers hard fought for rights and entitlements.

I view this from my position as both a business owner and business consultant. Businesses with structured and valued representatoon are often the ones doing better year on.
 
I have been working for 20 years and workers rights have increased since I started - it is far harder now to dismiss someone than it used to be,
 
cambsno said:
I have been working for 20 years and workers rights have increased since I started - it is far harder now to dismiss someone than it used to be,
Click to expand...


...but it's far, far easier to comprehensively shag an entire work force in terms of pay and conditions.
 
cambsno said:
I have been working for 20 years and workers rights have increased since I started - it is far harder now to dismiss someone than it used to be,
Click to expand...

And so it bloody should be!

I certainly would not want to be an employee of yours.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Sugest strongly you lok at the history of the Trade Union Movement both pre the formation of the Trade Union Congress in 1868 when those fighting to form unions to protect workers from the poor worki.g conditions and faced being murdered for trying to get better conditions and in the years after to the current day where unions are deprecated by the "owners" who seek to kill off unions.

Your comments suggest you may need to acquaint yourself with how things have changed since the 80s for the detriment of thw workers hard fought for rights and entitlements.

I view this from my position as both a business owner and business consultant. Businesses with structured and valued representatoon are often the ones doing better year on.
Click to expand...




Having worked for 34yrs now, I've seen many changes in how my union has operated, some have been good some have been bad. Unions have become a lot less volatile compared to how they were in the 70's.
Unions need to wake up to the real world. Yes they are there to protect their members rights as best they can, but do it sensibly. Firstly take a good look at the reasons why the changes are being imposed. Then come up with an alternative more acceptable plan and negotiate, not a flat refusal and kick off. It should never get to the point where the members are suddenly representing the union and working to the unions agenda instead of the other way round, sadly this happens way to often, in a couple of instances in the past 3 years we've had to tell our union where to go, even threatened to leave and sign up for another union who would be willing to represent us properly.
 
nilagin said:
Having worked for 34yrs now, I've seen many changes in how my union has operated, some have been good some have been bad. Unions have become a lot less volatile compared to how they were in the 70's.
Unions need to wake up to the real world. Yes they are there to protect their members rights as best they can, but do it sensibly. Firstly take a good look at the reasons why the changes are being imposed. Then come up with an alternative more acceptable plan and negotiate, not a flat refusal and kick off. It should never get to the point where the members are suddenly representing the union and working to the unions agenda instead of the other way round, sadly this happens way to often, in a couple of instances in the past 3 years we've had to tell our union where to go, even threatened to leave and sign up for another union who would be willing to represent us properly.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree one bit with what you say.

The warning signs are there to see in that for over 30 years the portrayal of unions are still of Trotskyite leaders downing tools at the drop of a hat over "conditions" "hourly rates" etc etc.

This is not the case but misinformation and politics aside, there is, in my expereience, a realisation that cohesive non-confrontational representation benefits all.

BUT it is a one sided argument to say that changes to contractural conditions can just be forced by one side on those working AND forward planning their lives against agreed conditions, to just say "OK just go ahead and utterly unpick our agreement after x years" Especially when many have built long careers and changing is difficult, and then expect a new happy appy agreeme.t to slide through.

There is little point in confrotational and illogical knee jerk reactionary union led action. Legally it is impossible to do so.

Steve
 
Ah but without the unions they wouldn't have got use of the office chair at weekends and Mr Hawkins daughter to be phased in by 2022
Click to expand...

But Mrs Hawkins was off the table....Apparently!

And to put it bluntly none of that will mean a flying f...
And unions have never lied I suppose to make themselves still worthwhile. In my experience unions will make things seem worse than what they really are, just to "rally the troops"
Click to expand...

Of course they have, and I (and clearly you are too, given you've been working the same length of time I have) old enough to remember the loony union behaviour of the 70's in BL for example.

Unions have their places, and certainly in unfair treatment of employees, but normally I am very anti the way they have acted. Although in this case, I am fully aware that the FBU isn't just interested in their members rights, it's as much an anti tory action. But ok, it may well be a by product of that, but they are in reality acting in the publics interests on this, in the same way as the PolFed would if it could.
 
Bernie174 said:
But Mrs Hawkins was off the table....Apparently!

Of course they have, and I (and clearly you are too, given you've been working the same length of time I have) old enough to remember the loony union behaviour of the 70's in BL for example.

Unions have their places, and certainly in unfair treatment of employees, but normally I am very anti the way they have acted. Although in this case, I am fully aware that the FBU isn't just interested in their members rights, it's as much an anti tory action. But ok, it may well be a by product of that, but they are in reality acting in the publics interests on this, in the same way as the PolFed would if it could.
Click to expand...

And I am old enough to remember those says too.

The pointer to BL was a good illustration but what about the 900,000 companiss where workers are providing the impetus for stable employment and growth when times are good and agreed short time working when times are bad?

As for pointing to the FBU being ant-tory.... No I think you will find the issue this theead covrrs would be the same whoever was driving the agenda. Goes beyond just doctrine but take yourself back to the reformation of the monarchy. (Charles II). It was the Tories (and this is fact NOT POLITICS), who tore apart Cromwell's New Model Army, regiments and numbers not just for saving cash but as a revenge for the crushing of the army that destroyed the Royalists during a Civil War in England. It also released thousands of well trained men into a vacuum of no work (or benefits) - surprise surprise Theft and other crimes went through the roof. Still deportation to the colonies and a much used executiln process provided popular entertainment.

Spring forward hundreds of years and that doctrine of "cost saing" survives. Along with spite and a race to impoverish easy targets.
 
Last edited:
That would have been impressive. The NMA was disbanded following the Restoration in 1660. The Tories (and Whigs for that matter) didn't appear on the scene as a 'party' until the Exclusion crisis 19 years later.

That's like saying that David Cameron was responsible for Maastricht.
 
DemiLion said:
That would have been impressive. The NMA was disbanded following the Restoration in 1660. The Tories (and Whigs for that matter) didn't appear on the scene as a 'party' until the Exclusion crisis 19 years later.

That's like saying that David Cameron was responsible for Maastricht.
Click to expand...

It was the evolution of the army following the NMA for the English formal structured army that was torn down and the tories at the time were those that were the forerunners of the e formal political party which with the Whigs evolved into the formal party system, as you say in the late 17th Century.

The use of the term "Tory" had been in use for some time but may have been a poor choice (maybe not???"!!)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Tory

Steve
 
Bernie174 said:
I (and clearly you are too, given you've been working the same length of time I have) old enough to remember the loony union behaviour of the 70's in BL for example.
Click to expand...

I only caught the tail end of the 70's but knew all to well what unions could be like in the car industry as my Dad worked for Ford before me. The assembly plant at Dagenham was particularly militant. They would go on strike for the most stupid reasons, even the increase in price of baked beans in the canteen. Every years pay talks, the first few company offers would be turned down by all, but when it was decided the offer was the best that could be reached and the unions recommended acceptance, you could guarantee a big unanimous vote from the assembly plant for another rejection, luckily they would be out voted by the rest of the UK plants. There has been a programme on BBC4 shown several times about Ford Dagenham plant and there was a union plant convenor bragging about how he ruled his workmates with an iron fist and how he wouldn't let the management get away with anything. The end of the programme was about the closure of car production at Dagenham at the turn of this century and the same convenor said how sad that was, but it was the actions of union people like him over the years, that had finally made Ford call time and decide to have it all done cheaper elsewhere. Chances are if the car production had remained, then the stamping plant and tool room would also still be operating today instead of closing down in July of this year. As a result of that, I'm no longer a toolmaker. However I'm fortunate I'm still with the company, but now retraining as a prototype mechanic and working in another local plant. Some of my workmates haven't been so fortunate though. They've ended up on the production line doing unskilled work, although they have kept their skilled employees money. I realise my job and employer is different to that of a firefighter, but the unions need to realise these steps have to be taken for economic reasons and as I wrote earlier, they should be negotiating a compromise where the workers aren't forced to give so much away, but the employer can at least make some saving and allow things to remain viable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top