laincoubert

It is an opportunity which wouldn't have presented itself had ffs not gone on strike, yes djka that is apparent now. Coleman for all his faults isn't stupid. In a much earlier post I suggested he actually wanted the strikes, he was spoiling for this fight and manipulting the situation to suit his agenda. I would say given his smug gratitude to the fbu for allowing him to remove the 27 machines in the first place then I am convinced this was his strategy all along. The ffs had little choice but to react to his provocation but at same time were playing into his hands. Quite a guy!

Agreed. Fitting a few extra smoke alarms in the day instead of night never justified this scale of dispute and has been a smokescreen all along. Coleman has orchestrated the entire performance so far which is why the commissioner has now become rather silent. Remember both Coleman and chief gave 100% cast iron guarantees via national media that there would be no cuts to jobs or fire cover. The ffs were not believed when they claimed Coleman was lying and many people surprised me by accepting the politicians word in this matter despite the managements stated aims being so flaky!!! The effects of a 16% cut are not something I could speculate on yet. I am certain at least that the breakdown in trust between management and workers which was serious enough to result in strike action twice and which nearly included bonfire night is mainly the fault of the bosses. They appear to treat their workers in a contemptible way, have been dishonest to both staff and the public and I have been saddened to see this. I will never understand why they couldn't have been open from the start and worked with the union to find savings and explore the potential for cuts without stoking up this pointless and damaging dispute on what seems to be false grounds. I expect more from the leaders of an essential emergency service.

Definitely good news for all. Shame that Coleman along with much of tomorrows press are claiming a victory over the fbu. I had hoped the management would take the moral high ground and drop the 188 if only to avoid exposing public to unnecessary risk at a dangerous time and shame theft some what. In the end it was the fbu who did this postponing strike action in spite of colemans refusal to offer any assurances over contract impositon. Quite the opposite in fact he gloated over their step down as a victory rubbing their noses in the fact they had won nothing, while of course blowing their best opportunity to stretch the resources of assett co to breaking point. They have I suppose sacrificed an opportunity to score a ko blow to management in the interests of public safety and no doubt due to the wishes of their members. I hope they are not now trounced by management and that their sensible decision to abandon this strike does at the least score some pr points as well as providing London with the insurance against disaster that the city requires at this time.

Ok,there's no conspiracy to break the union. Coleman, isn't deceiving us, Dobson isn't doing this to further his own political career. Dobson has publicly stated he will sack any firefighter who won't sign and Coleman is relaxed about sacking them. They refuse to show any goodwill and thus are prepared to allow the strike to commence Friday. All this is so that firefighters can fit a few more smoke alarms in the afternoon!!! Make any sense???? There are of course last minute talks planned to avert the strike, negotiations I think they are called. Yet mr Dobson has already sent notice to the watch coming on duty Friday telling to stay at home instead of working the hour they should work before the strike begins. Sounds to me like the last minute talks are already doomed and the outcome already decided as there will be no opportunity to recall these firefighters after the talks end!!! There are no negotiations are there!!!

And one last question for now. Assett co? This company secured the contract for one reason only, to be a strike breaking service. There is very little to suggest that the LFB with 5500 FFs would ever need their assistance in the course of even the most serious disaster so we can safely assume that this was considered money well spent to ensure that FFs had very little bargaining power when the contracts got looked at. Surely there was another way which could have averted todays fight and seen that money used much more wisely

DJKQ, I think what I tried to say is that once this dispute is passed, the murdoch media will wish to villify another group of public sector workers in support of the con-lib cuts. Of course the public will be free to make up their own minds, but we will not be helped in doing this objectively by reading the daily rags who do like to persecute sections of society from time to time.

If the fbu offered to call of the strikes in return for a 11/13 contract to be reviewed in a year (but without strings, just like the 12/12 sought by LFB ) do you think the management would accept?? it would seem reasonable to me, surely enough of a compromise to be worth accepting to avert the potentially distasterous consequences of any assett co failure on the 5th! Personally I do not think they would however which must beg the question, what are they actually doing during negotiations? If they refuse to budge on anything, then there are no negotiations, it is a farce and this war of attrition will continue until one side runs out of resources, inevitably the FFs. I have now read the document supplied by MM a few pages back, and I only see a extremely well presented case for change, but certainly not the bullet proof strategy to get more value from the London FFs which some profess to have found within its pages. For one I see no real monetary savings from 12/12. Contrast to this the huge expense of this dispute (PR, policing, compensation to insurers, surveillance and last but not least Assett co) surely the presented potential benefits do not outweigh this? not to mention the immeasureable damage done in the division between workers and management. Management incidently, many of whom quit the union in the run up to the strikes following a meeting with the LFB leaders. My sources have not found out what was said, but rumour is that they were threatened with something and offered an incentive of some sort to quit the union and break strike. Whatever it was must have been persuasive as a large number quit the union immediately, although worth remembering that some have remained in. (whatever was threatened/offered surely will not have been worth it for the senior officer arrested Monday and for GBH and dangerous driving following his inventive but brutal strategy to get through a picket line in a brigade vehicle. Not relevant I know but a shocking development). The time period between 18:30 up to 22:00 and beyond if necessary is currently available for community work on the night shift, usually limited to the fitment of smoke alarms in domestic properties (why people require the fire brigade to do this is beyond me). On the current day shift, these duties are available between 14:00 and around 16:00 (not including AM avaiability). So the time where community work cannot be scheduled is 16:00 to 18:30, which coincides with rush hour funnily enough! Conveniently enough I should say as this would not be a good time to be travelling and visiting homes. 12/12 will allow different period of evening time to perform this work. 15:00 until 18:00 will be an available time on the day shift. Then 20:30 until 22:00 and beyond if necessary. So 18:00 until 20:30 are the unavailable times. Surely these would be the best time to go to peoples homes! After rush hour but before it becomes late. For one there is not a massive difference, certainly not enough to justify pushing the workforce to the point of striking and imposing these hours anyway! But secondly what do they gain/lose? On the current system they are unavailable during rush hour 16:00 to 18:30. A sensible time to remain at station and do station based activities in the absence of any distress call outs. On the proposed system they are unavailable between 18:30 to 20:30. Seems like they lose the best possible time to visit people, in my opinion anyway. I see only very dubious/debatable improvements being implimented on to a service who has never failed an audit and achieved huge fire reductions already. I would however be interested to see what the call stats are for other types of calls as I would wonder whether flooding, broken lifts, car wreckages, chemical spills and the numerous other types of calls has changed much. Although no doubt future plans to refuse to attend these types of calls would probably be penned in secret to achieve further statistics which support cuts. To hell with the people who need them and have no one else to turn to. For me everything about the management approach feels wrong. If you trust everything they say then ok i can see why you will discredit the FBU proposals and staunchly support the managements right to manage. You will not be able to sympathise with the complexity of the FFs position. But if you can consider that just like the tabloids (you do all know that FFs do not ever earn anything like ?40K PA dont you? despite what the mail says earning are around ?33K with earnings up to around ?34k if a lot of overtime is performed), the LFB management are happily prepared to lie with their insidious methods in order to achieve their aims, then you may be able to see why the FFs would feel they have little choice but to fight in the way that they are. So for me something whiffs about this dispute, the potential gains, even if their predictions are correct, which as I have shown is debatable, simply do not warrant the actions they have taken. This seems to be an attack driven by a few people in positions of great responsibility who are forging ahead with huge resources available to them and who will use these resources in any way they wish in order to win. It seems to me that the winning is what it is all about and that is very sad for me and for the people stuck in the middle of this struggle. Either way this dispute is looking so murky to me that Im beginning to doubt that in this instance public opinion is worth very much to either side.

Those supporting LFB management are placing a lot of faith in their proposals which are backed up by their carefully selected stats. For me, I dont believe the management can be trusted (see earlier posts regarding changes and subsequent closures and cuts in west midlands). That is of course quite a criticism and one which many will dismiss as being unfounded, I know, but you and I the paying public can think what we like, our opinions on that matter will shape nothing. It is the workforce who have zero faith in the management and their intentions/methods and they have of course flocked to the relative, if misguided safety, of union support and sticking together. I would assume Mr Dobson covets a political career (his lump sum is payable in less than two years now) following in the footsteps of his predecessor Ken Knight MBE (Bob Neils Fire advisor, nice job following huge retirement payout, LFB served him very well). Mr Coleman craves notoriety and sees this as "his" moment to shine. And Mr Johnson, quite possibly the real driving force behind the current methods, is quite rightly distancing himself from the details in public to ensure he does not taint his reputation with that of Coleman, in case LFEPAs appointed leader should get shot down in flames (excuse the expression) over his mishandling of this situation. If the management do not have the decency to argue with transparency, to lie in effect, then they are hardly going to be capable of taking the workforce with them, and FFs who believe they are fighting for their livlihoods are inevitably going to want to, well "go down fighting" at the least. The union do not do themselves any favours with some of their publicity, although prior to announcing November 5th strikes, one might wonder if they had any publicity at all, but I am beginning to wonder how much public support rally matters now. Especially considering the Daily Mail and the sun to name but two of the national tabloids who have made it their mission to slur FF's names and ensure that they are regarded as feckless greedy scum. Again, much of the stats used by the Daily Mail look suspiciously like data that has been leaked by the LFBs 39 strong media comminucations team, which if true shows quite how dirty and downright scandalous the management are prepared to stoop in order to crush the revolt. Certainly any disaster on Nov 5 blame will be laid at the door of the FFs. But the insurance companies will be getting their compensation from the LFB. No dramas over November 5 weekend and FF's will be seen to have been overstating their importance and the credit will go to the LFB. Either scenario FF's win no victory and no support. However come the end of november those that do not sign will be unemployed and those that do will have a new contract which means 12/12. In either instance public support doesnt help them one bit and the FFs though their reputation damaged forever will be forgotten while the public feast on the next public sector group targeted and villified to give the mob figures to hate.

I know I have mentioned it before but how does everyone feel about their "divide and rule" deductions which quite frankly must be illegal? My understanding is junior officers who previously volunteered to temporarily take charge of various crews and stations (other than their home stations) are being deducted 20% of their monthly wages. When they perform these temporary deputising duties they earn an additional payment per shift, 5 or 10 pounds I believe. When they are not performing these voluntary duties they earn their standard wage as determined by their real rank. So their refusal to perform these non contractual duties do not affect their ability to fully perform all of their ranks contractual duties, I.e there is no breach of contract yet they are losing around 500 per month now. This Is being contested by union lawyers but will no doubt take a long time to resolve. If as I am reliably lead to believe this will without doubt be ruled in favour of the union then eventually the money will be repaid plus any employer fine too. But in the mean time what a great way to heap pressure on certain union members and potentially financially break them into relinquishing their union membership. I'm only raising this to highlight how dirty this battle is bring fought by both sides and perhaps help explain why the mood of ffs is so resolute and they are so angry with their leaders. Interest in your views

Excellent points mr macgabhan, if these strikes go ahead next week then regardless of the outcomes I think it is fair to say management have failed badly and so have the union bosses. The shifts alone shouldn't be causing a fight of this scale and both sides must be held responsible for that. The union in particular though could certainly justify investing in some PR expertise though. Loz asked earlier about whether they really would sack 5500 ffs if they held out and refused to sign. In short yes, just not all at once. New contracts will be imposed in phases. Those who have served only a few years will be issued theirs first and they will get only one or two weeks to sign. If they don't sign yes they are sacked/unemployed. Once confronted with this choice, who won't sign?? These are guys who have just started out on a career and will be unlikely to have many alternative career options. If these guys did all refuse to sign, which just won't happen, the lfb will initially lose only a few hundred ffs, depending upon numbers they could adjust the strategy and timescsles for imposing these contracts on the remaining serving ffs. New recruits would all start on these contracts. So yes they can really threaten to replace them all and mean it, it is just a matter over how long they choose/are forced to spend imposing these contracts.

Has anybody changed their minds or switched allegiance since the start of this debate? I began pro FF and mistrustful of the ruling authority and remain so. I cannot see that anyone else has been swayed by any of the arguments presented. I also think its fair to say almost everyone prejudged this dispute and very quickly knew where they sat in this arguement. Does that say something about the nature of this debate?

MM, could I ask, as I havent read these documents personally, Is it then the presentation of the case which is its biggest failing? Or put another way, had the people who put together the 12/12 LFB paper put this effort into the 16/8 FBU paper, could this alternative shift pattern have potential to demonstrate a credible resolution? Is it mainly the FBUs lack of skill in reporting and presenting which is the biggest weakness in their proposed solution?

I hoped my apology would have been good enough for you to let my earlier silly comment go, my mistake in the first place so shouldnt complain. But this is an emotive issue, there is more to this than any one of us on here really knows about and surely being honest we are all a little predujiced. So has everyone on here really read these documents in full? Or is MM the only person who is not debating with an inadequate understanding of the facts? I will have a read and see if I can substantiate my predujiced point of view better

Thankyou MM for providing the documents arguing for he FBUs 8/16 proposals and the managements alternative proposals too. Have you or anyone else read them in detail? They are a bit long winded for me I dont have the paitence. I have had a flick though, lingering slightly longer over the FBU proposals and in terms of achieving the required aims they both seem to cover everything. i suspect a written document supporting 9/15 would be pretty convincing too. Can anyone tell me what is in the FBU's 8/16 that the brigade may not like? If there is no need to introduce 12/12 as a precurser to station closures and the end of the watch structure, then can anyone see why in order to immediately bring about change, improvements and and end to this stand off the brigade do not wish to accept the 8/16 proposals??? Is it not really about the hours but are do both documents include lots of strings and demands which the other side doesnt want to accept? I wish I had the paitence to study both and compare but they really look like boring reads

Mick mack. Did you just quote andy gilchrist!!!!!! Who is andy gilchrist in this dispute? I thought he had been jettisoned long ago

"When you're losing a PR battle against Brian Coleman, you have to start asking yourself serious questions" LOL

And as for a fbu presentation have no idea. They probably doo not have quite as good spin department as the mansgement

So the night shift currently Is a working shift already, they are required to perform duties between 1800 and 00:00 when stand down begins. But as management know, by around 21:00 ffs can run out of meaningful chores to keep busy with between 999 calls. They do training and community work however between 1800 and around 2100 some times later. So the fbu proposal to start the Night shift earlier, at 1600, would allow full scale drills to be carried out at the start of nights plus all the other extra chores required of them. Does this help explain how the fbu alternative is equal too ifnot better than 12s!! With the advantage of maintaining morale of these men and women

MM. There is no dispute over rest periods. Management currently allow stand down between 00:00 and 0700. This time can be used for sleeping between calls. In their 12/12 proposals they will allow ffs to sleep between 00:00 and 0600, not a big difference and not the cause of any argument. Therefore like it or not, 24 hr shifts, 12 hour shifts or 13s would include stand down rest periods and ffs would sleep. Like any other brigade round the globe. So

Apologies for my slur, emotive subject but I will not resort to insults again! And yes I can see mms posts are thoughtful, I was just frustrated.

Not sure about all the strings but one is to do with working at different stations. Currently they report to their own stations but can be ordered to travel to any other station as required. This is done once on duty and travel expenses are paid. Additionally at the end of the shift overtime is accrued while they return their uniforms and other kit to their own stations. One of the strings is to report with kit to any station in London, thus travelling in their own time to undetermined locations. The expenses offered to remunerate the additional time spent travelling are unattractive. Separate to this, why are the brigade docking 20% pay of officers who have merely withdrawn voluntary duties. They are still fulfilling their contractual duties in full! This is currently in court and no doubt the fb will lose this in months to come and pay a heavy fine. But short term they are financially breaking junior officers. Divide and rule!! The management are pretty ruthless too no?

Marmora man. 1. Ffs are always available for 999 calls. This includes during stand down periods, during change of watch during community work during training, while eating lunch, when in the shower and on the toilet. 24 hour shifts do not reduce availability. There is no time during the ff shift when they are not available. Only cuts reduce availability. 2. Why the fixation on performing all training and community work on day shifts. Night shifts are currently used for some community work and class room training. There is no clause that if 1700 is part of the dayshift then theycan train but if 1700 is part of the night shift they have to stand down and play snooker. Your arguments are entirely flawed, ffs want to train and are happy to perform community work, perform inspections and test equipment. There is no reason why their night shift cannot be better used for this and the early start time of 1600 fits the bill perfectly! I eagerly await your next clueless rebuke

I been looking into the brigade proposals a bit more. They demand 12/12 which we all know although there are question marks as to the real reasons since their stated reasons are very flimsy. But the managements alternative "compromise" is 13/11. Which on the surface seems like middle ground between what they want and what ffs currently have. What isn't so well published is that 13/11 is only offered but with strings attached. Conditions which are unacceptable to ffs, a lot of conditions. The 13/11 is a or stunt to look flexible, but unless thry drop the strings they are not iffering ffs any real alternative or room to move. Why is 12/12 demanded with no extra strings but 13/11 only offered with these conditions?? That is nor negotiation, it is manipulation

Fbu proposed several, 24 hour shifts being the most recent. You would need ff to explain exactly how it would work the benefits etc but it does replicate a common shift pattern in USA and several European countries. Although it doesn't seem very family friendly to me. 0800 til 1600 and 1600 til 0800 was proposed weeks ago. This would appear to tick a lot of boxes with the added benefit of the early evening start allowing more training time and community fire safety work at the start of their night shifts. You don't need to be a fbu rep to be able to see thebenefits of the 8-16 shift proposal. Management said no and refused to consider. I still firmly believe management want the strike, this is a cynical ploy to break the back of the union and asmr coleman said on the radio lastlast night "if no ffs sign the newcontracts, that's fine I will rebuild the fire brigade". Doeshe sound like he is spoiling for this fight or what

They will lose, whether you wish it or not. They were always on a loser, I just respect people who stand up to bullys and their right to defend their legal contracts. The management could always take the moral high ground and retract 188 (strike over). But they refuse to as they have too much contempt for their workers to care about the possible innocent victims during the strike. How are the management any less culpable??