Marmora Man

IainC I remain prepared to change my mind but the arguments, presented on paper by both sides (and what I already knew of the dispute from reading a variety of newspapers of right, centre and left views) have persuaded me that, to date, the management case is the most logical. It's certainly not about allegiance - that's as bad as patriotism. My country right or wrong = my trade union brothers / sisters right or wrong = managers must manage right or wrong. All very poor basis for objectively considering an issue

Sean, You know I'm not arguing about affordability of the firefighters but your question is a little naive - in every company I've been associated with over the last 12 - 15 months that is the very question that is being asked over and over again. How can we do the same with less or more with the same?

Ridgley - too simplistic. If you object to certain cuts then, given the overall state of public finances, you must propose an alternative cut elsewhere.

Kbabe01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Theres a suprise! What? That I've read the papers presented? That I believe the management position is strongest? That I've considered the FBU case? What is your opinion of the three sets of papers? Do you find the union case well presented - does it put your views over well? If I were a member of the FBU I'd be mightily p****d off that they had put forward such a weak and poorly argued case. I have rejected far better prepared papers from staff as being inadequate and needing revision.

Further to your post of 08.57 - you suggest I make clueless rebukes. Your most recent post deserves the strongest of rebukes. I place both sides of the argument on this site for you to consider but you find them too long and boring to read. By declining the opportunity to consider the two arguments you rule yourself out of the debate as your rejection means that your comments to date are based upon emotion and prejudice rather than the facts of the case. I have read all the papers provided - I have considered the arguments presented and find the management case to be both cogent and forceful. In contrast I find the FBU arguments weak and reactive; they fail to offer much to the debate. In fact the FBU paper barely stands up as a piece of independent argument - it simply attempts, but fails, to shoot down the management case.

For information the FBU case for an 8/16 shift patter is here. The management papers are here and here. Read and compare on an objective basis.

IainC 24 hours on duty is unsupportable - either you have bleary eyed and tired staff by hour 18 or you have staff sleeping during the shift they are being paid to work. THus the full 24 hours cannot be used productively. If, as you say, night shift staff are prepared to carry out the "day shift" jobs during the night shift hours and forego 3 hours of their current rest period during that shift - that's fine. However, that doesn't seem to be the case, for it it were there would be no argument between management and staff. Does the FBU have a simple paper, similar to those posted on here by individuals presenting the management case, that sets out the union position and that we can all read?

IainC - taking your 07.42 post first. 1. The 24 hours offer must be simply a stalking horse - put forward knowing it would be shot down. If firefighters were to be on duty for a 24 hour period this would require them to have a stand down and rest periods - reducing availability. If no rest period were included the firefighters would be too tired to perform effectively and the long term impact of such shifts would be damaging to health at least and probably family life as well. 2. The 08.00 - 16.00 with 16.00 - 08.00 offer is no real offer as it doesn't address the management's desire to lengthen the dayshift, in fact it decreases it. As I understand it the management's position is that by lengthening the dayshift by 3 hours to 12, and shortening the nightshift by 3 hours would allow greater day work of community fire safety visits, fitting smoke alarms, training with their equipment to be carried out - as these are not done on night shift when firefighters consider themselves to be "on call" but not required to carry out this sort of work. You say that you don't have to be a firefighter to see the benefits of the 08.00 - 16.00 system, but I'm afraid I cannot see them. On your 08.01 post: The 13/11 alternative does seem, on the face of it, to be an acceptable compromise. You state it is unacceptable to firefighters because of the strings attached. What are these strings? Why are they unacceptable? You and others claim that management is trying to break the union, that they have reasons other than trying to create a more effective and productive service. You offer no evidence for this - merely assertions. There is a very good general case to be made that key public services should have no strike clauses - neither the police or the armed forces can strike. Nurses and doctors are not forbidden by legislation to strike but have a tradition of not doing so (and, as a result, tend to have public support when they are in dispute with management). Public transport staff and firefighters can and do strike. I feel that there is growing sympathy for the idea of such "no strike" deals and the current actions of the FBU, and the RMT on London Underground, are only likely to increase support for the idea.

Still no answer to my challenge. What alternative proposals do the FBU have for shift patterns in London?

I think I blinked!

Kbabe01 - you or your colleagues have consistently said that AssetCo cannot cope. If you truly believe that then your striking on 5th November is a dangerous action. As I keep asking - let us see what your alternative proposal is to counter the management one put forward and evidenced on this thread by several different reports. If the facts change I can change my mind - but you have yet to put up an argument that even starts to make a case that might change my mind.

Management is less culpable because it has consistently presented a rational proposal to modernise working patterns that will improve productivity, reduce problems by changing shift changeover timings, a system that independent reports will give firefigters improved social time with their family. Throughout it appears that the FBU has refused to consider or negotiate. One party is being rational and using the legal options open to it, the other party is being intransigent and trying to portray the strike as being about the Section 188 action - it's not. The strike is about the unon's refusal to accept change. If Ian Coulbert or others would pos details of the FBU alternative proposals to the management proposal we could all decide which party is making the best case. However, all I've seen from supporters of the strike are claims of bullying, of political interference but no argument that critiques the management proposal. So a challenge to all those supporting the strike - what alternative proposals are you making? Maintaining status quo is not an option. If the management is being truly unreasonable then demonstrate this by letting us here your reasonable alternative. EDited to correct typos and make a further point

Brum, Productivity can be improved by lengthening the day shift - during which firefighters can carry out their prevention work and other productive activities in hours when the general public and businesses they serve are around. The papers that have been posted on this thread make it very clear that other fire brigades have seen benefits from changing the shift pattern - London Fire Brigade management is right to seek such benefits, staff are being foolish if they believe out of date working practices can be preserved in aspic. There is a real difference between being the Fire Commissioner on-call and asleep and the front line staff also being asleep. The Fire Commissioner is not expected to drive immediately, at speed, to the site of the fire and fight the fire, that's what the frontline staff are being paid to do. When I was a seagoer I was also on call when I was asleep - but on call 24 hours a day for weeks at a time. My crew were operating a 6 hours on / 6 hours off watchkeeping pattern (with extra duties during part of the "6 off" period) - also for weeks on end. Please do not assume I know nothing about watchkeeping or shift patterns.

DJKQ - absolutely. Quite apart from the current financial situation the refusal of the FBU to recognise the need for change or to respond in a rational way to the objective analysis of the benefits that the 12/12/12/12 shift pattern would bring is the cause of the strike NOT Section 188. The only "downside" of the proposed new shift pattern is that firefighters on night shifts would not have as much "rest time" during which they can sleep - which I find difficult to sympathise with - greater productivity is delivered and night shift staff can sleep during the day like all other night shift workers.

Nero, I'm 6'5" and close to 60, I still ski - albeit more gently. Height is not necessarily a problem - once you've mastered actually manouevring the skis. If you can afford it (time and money) I'd recommend Canada & the Rockies. The pistes are wide, seldom crowded and conditions invariably excellent with usually fine blue skies as well. All the instructors will be english speaking. Night life not fantastic tho' Banff can be fun. Alternatively my son is working in Meribel this year - but, technically (despite an international ski instructor qualification, recognised in every other country) not allowed to instruct in France where all ski instructors have to be passed out of an approved French ski school - so much for EU free movement of persons and jobs.

I said I'd bow out of this debate but I'm amazed at how those in favour of the strike can portray themselves as oppressed and subject to censorship from powerful forces. Quite a persecution complex from a team of people that have resolutely refused to discuss or consider changes to their working practices established over 30 years ago, despite significant improvements to fire safety in modern London and the role & tasks of the Fire Service. Citing the support of Bob Crow and his union is not something that would persuade me that this is strike is a sensible and rational move. Quite the opposite - the RMT has a history of political strikes and excessive use of their stranglehold on the London Underground / staff to bully the public and management.

If they really don't want to strike MoFlo - I suggest they stop striking. It's quite simple really.

This thread doesn't seem to add much to the debate.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I could also remind you that the banks did not run > away with tax payers' money. The government took a > lot of equity in return, and will - at some point > - actually make a profit from these shares. Agree - the sale of "our" shares in banks in about 2014, just before the next election should provide some cash for pre-election sweeteners

Santerme, Just got round to reading this - the best ASW platform in the world is another submarine. The Nimrods were helpful but needed direction to localise - from submarines, FFs with towed arrays or SOSUS. One Nimrod = 8 hours fly time & 4 hours on task (roughly if working west of UK). Many, many Nimrods needed to trail, localise and sink a single submarine. One submarine = 12 weeks on task time during which it can localise, trail, close and sink many enemy submarines. On the decision to go ahead with the carriers - it gives us a lopsided navy for ten years, but I think the defence thinking is that ten years is a long time - between then and now there may be a case to be made for more destroyers and other escorts, which are, as David Carnell points out essentail to any carrier task force. Equally, the current plan to mothball one of the carriers my not happen. Suppose they prove useful to us and our allies, suppose we fly Nato aircraft off a UK platform. If the carrier programme had been ditched now there would never again be a Britisgh carrier force, this fudged decisoon may give us one in the future.

If you look at the graph it can be seen that the last 10 years have seen a significant acceleration in the rate of gov't spending. It is this acceleration that has caused the structural deficit which we are all now having to "pay" for in cuts to gov't spending. The long term trend is inexorably upwards - fine if it matches Britain's economic growth as it demands no more than taxpayers can afford. Essentially this is what UK can cope with. Bad if the spending rate exceeds economic growth as someone, somwewhere has to fund the gap. In the short term borrowing can cover off the shortfall but not forever. From roughly 1982 through to 1998 the short term trend was less than the long term upward trend, public sector spending was growing but at a slower rate than economic growth. From 1998 till recently the rate at which gov't spending was growing looks to have been about twice the long term rate - unsustainable in the long term, it was bound to end in tears. There have been periods in the past when gov't spending growth exceeded the long term trend and the areas above the line therefore represent "unacceptable / unrealisable" spending rates. The areas below the trend line represent periods where though slower gov't spending the tax payer was retaining more of their money. I would suggest that any government can only change the long term trend with the agreement of the electorate - and since the long term trend hasn't changed in 50 years perhaps the electorate doesn't want it to move much in either direction, one being toward sustained higher taxes and higher gov't spending or alternatively, lower gov't spending and lower taxes. It would be nice to think that post 2014 when this era of austerity may be coming to an end that it can be used as a platform to get back under the long term trend.

I'm bowing out of this discussion but would point out as a farewell shot that we should be discussing the Fire Service and how to make it the best it can be and not discussing management / union battles. Along with others that have posted here and elsewhere I was a serviceman. Mtual distrust in the Army, Navy or Airforce would be destructive and dangerous - it seems to be the same with the Fire Service, which should have an advantage as all its senior officers are drawn from its ranks, rather than direct entry, and have practical experience that they share with everyone else.

Londonfireman, your statistic of 2.5 deaths a year in the Fire Service is clearly 2.5 too many. However, dangerous work cannot, of itself, justify uncritical support for what to me, despite four pages of comment and at least three requests from me, an unexplained and unnecessary strike. It could be about shift patterns, or maybe the right of management to manage or the right of unions to oppose management or something else entirely.

Hi - can the last few posts on the "I'm a councillor can I help" thread me moved to the Lounge / Drawing Room. The debate on tuition fees and university education is interesting but will get lost in the wider range of issues on that thread. See here

Moflo - you need to consider the events that have led to the point where management is threatening to sack firefighters and firefighters are threatening to go on strike. Root cause Analysis is a process that might help. Essentially the employer has been trying, for some years - but without success as I understand it, to negotiate changes to work patterns with the employees. Whether there is justification or not for these changes is almost immaterial - the employees (FBU) have refused to even contemplate, let alone discuss and negotiate, the proposed changes. This refusal to consider, discuss or negotiate leads the employer to initiate, under long standing employment legislation [dating back to the previous Wilson / Callaghan Labour administration] the threat of mass redundancies (aka sackings) from which they would then re-employ staff on new terms & conditions. It's the management equivalent of a strike. Both sides appear to be intransigent, both sides seem to deserve each other. The public deserves better from both parties. As far as I can see from press and TV the majority, if not all, of Fire Service chiefs are drawn from the serving firefighters - one must assume they know the reality of life on existing shift patterns. Heroes or villians the question of the shift pattern is at the heart of this dispute. Everyone seems to acknowledge that the shift pattern has remained unchanged for over 30 years.Since 1980 the incidence, type, location and cause of fires will have changed, as will fire prevention techniques, training and policy - changing shift patterns to reflect such changes seems at least a rational position to present. My position is not about ideological support for "brothers and sisters" in unions or some form of anti union / strike bashing - I would just like a rational and objective debate that eschews arguments about bullying management, heroic firefighters or strong management , lazy firefighters - neither position is sensible.