So, what do we all think about the UK fire brigade going "on strike" for the next 48 hours?

Ok, they may need a pay rise, but essential services such as that *should not* be on strike. Its just not right.

Thoughts anyone?

Jo

You seem to be under the impression that you are gauranteed certain services, police, firemen, etc.

You aren't. Especially in the states.

This has been discussed here:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73909

We are guaranteed these services in the UK - thats why we are taxed so highly.. 22%-45% of our wages goes straight to the government over here (in exchange for services such as police, fire etc..)

I think its quite iresponsible of the fire service to do this - although they need to get there message across, it shouldnt be possible for a firefighter to simply walk away from his job and decide to not put any fires out for 48 hours.

That army guys aint coping :( people have already died :bawling: Plus 50 year old machines!? for gods sake. :angry:

Im ok... where i work we have private fire brigade :)

im all for it :) they do a shocking job and the govt is taking advantage of them. remember the last labout govt, jim callahan? getting de ja vu? the winter of discontent, public sector strikes over a 6 versus 10 percent wage rise? remember how you couldnt even bury your dead because of the strikes.
i have to admit i have close connections to the fire brigade but they are in a monopoly situation and the govt are taking advantage of them.

40% pay rise in the public sector - they're having a joke, unfortunately the joke is costing lives and all they do is blame someone else.
Okay withdraw services like cleaning the engines, doing reports, cats up trees etc etc but DO NOT PUT PEOPLE'S LIVES AT RISK :mad:

I totally understabd the cause, but to be honest if they were given 40% it WOULD wreck the economy. (according to gordon brown today).

To be honest I don't aggree with them putting people's lives at risk over this, the FBU keeps saying "we dont want to strike"... so why do it? People have allready died and this is only the first one. The wont even let the armed forces use the appliances - they have to to use 50 year old fire engines built for the military, it's not on. :(

I say Fire all the striking firefighters and make the RFU into full time firefighters ;)

It's not right to risk peoples lives over this. :angry: :bawling:

they were offered a reasonable increase and rejected it.

40% is a joke. Imagine what would happen if the nurses, police and other public sector services all decided to just walk about because they want 40% more!

a reasonable increase?? theyve been under paid for years, they asked for 40% because theyre owed 10-20 and the only way to get for it was ask high and barter down. if the theavin govt stopped paying themselves a fortune and paid nurses and police and firefighters a decent wage, you do know their takehome pay is 6.50 an hour right? . thats pathetic. an independant inquiry just said they deserve 11% the govt didnt even offer half that 11%.
try getting your facts straight before slagging people off.

Firemen are better off than nurses and policemen, who get roughly the same wage but aren't allowed to take second jobs, and don't get 4 days off at a stretch (as firemen do apparently).

There's an article in today's Daily Telegraph (:) ) about how other countries manage with either a mainly-volunteer firebridge (85% are volunteers in the US?) or even private (50% of Denmark is covered by private firemen).

BTW, where do you work then UH-matt?

I agree with them going on strike.. off course its bad because of the lack of resources and expirance the Army have... but Fire Brigading, Doctors, Policing and Teaching are some of the most 'deserving' jobs about.. and they get ~beep~ all for what they do...

Dare I say more?

im not covered by the retained crews that offer protection to some areas, similar to matts situation and i live not far from a very large petrochemical plant :) not nervous at all lol.
yes nurses and police deserve more cash, but its ridiculous to say firemen shouldnt stand up for their rights because nurses dont get paid enough. they all deserve increases. yes firemen do get 4 days off, but you obviously have never worked shifts and therefore cannot appreciate how much of these four days are spent recovering from work. remember they get no SDA which other shift workers get and just to remind you 6.50 pounds an hour take home wage. you can earn more then that in a fast food joint. reality injection time.
oh and also for those talking about nurses and their time off, my mums a nurse and gets 4 days a week off, just like firemen, and she works 3 12 hour shifts so dont be conned by deceptive figure. remember you cant do you shopping on the way home, its 3 or 4 days a week where you cannot do anything so the extra time is spent sleeping and doing your catchup on house work. in the end you work out about even on the days off.

would you do their job for ten dollars an hour? remember were talkin about removing burned corpses from buildings and peeling apart car wrecks here, real dinner table discussion topics.

For every job opening, there's between 40 and 200 applicants :eek: - clearly no shortage of people willing to do those jobs, and they spend over half their time at the station, whereupon a nurse is on duty nearly all the time. (My mother is a former nurse, and is now a health visitor, so I understand)

However, I agree with you richy, all public service workers (incl. Nurses and Teachers) deserve a pay rise, and I didn't mean to sound like they shouldn't, just a fair case should be made for all of them! :) I do believe firemen have a right to strike, but the whole fire brigade system should be given an overall anyway.

That tube drivers can hold the capital to ransom is stupid, seeing that they're paid more for less anyway. :mad:

For those of you who hark on the people that have died during this strike.. you must ask yourself how many would have died anyways if there wasn't a strike... that will probabbly never be known for quite some time...

I read the reports.. your military was on the scene within 6 mins in 1 case and the man still died... I don't think the regulars could have gotten there much faster... either way I'm sure people die every day because of some fire related injury...

on one hand i am for it, they need to get their point across and no other way seems to have worked.
On the other hand when taking on the job they knew their responsibilities and i dont think they should have walked away from their jobs leaving so many peoples lives at risk.
Lets face it they are even putting their own families at risk.

its a real shame it has to come to it, no they shouldnt really be allowed to strike, i agree with this, but how else can they get what they deserve :( the military are doing a great job in bad circumstances but theyre never going to be just as good. what annoys me is the people taking advantage, like the school in blackpool set alight by kids as they knew the fire brigade wouldnt respond and the army arent setup to deal with fires that big.

some people are morons

I cant see, personally, why they are all paid the same wage, across the country.

I firefighter in London is going to need a payrise more so than a firefighter in Rotherham, for instance.

Why not define each stations payrise according to local pay averages and workload. IMHO.

And, New York Firefighters (not sure about the rest of the US) are not allowed to strike. This is very sensible. Imagine if there had been a strike in progress when 9/11 happened?

Just my £0.02 worth ;)

not a bad idea, most of the london firefighters live well outside london and sleep in the station all week.

There was a story in the evening standard about a firefighter who actually lives in wales and commutes in :eek: Surely they get "London Weighting" on their pay?