spc

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I recall that three years ago on these pages, spc > and his / her colleagues fighting against, not > "CUTS", but changes to shift patterns that would > have allowed more time devoted to fire prevention > work. You are right I was opposed to the shift change, partly because of the effect it would have on Ff's work/life balance and the fact that the Brigade wanted to rip up my contract without any discussion, but the main reason was because they wanted to change the shift to be able to close fire stations at night, as more people die or are seriously injured at night I thought it was a bad idea. They have changed my shift and got a longer day out of me, which is what they said they wanted, although they did not get the 12 hour shift they wanted to be able to close stations at night. As for their claim that with a longer day we could do more community safety work has once again proven to be wrong, moving our finish time to 8pm (the time they said they wanted) has removed the opportunity for an evening slot for doing any community safety work and cut down on the training we can do on nights too. The FBU offered a 24 hour shift to the brigade which would have removed one of the shift changes completely and give the brigade an extra hour/ hour half of time for doing any work needed, but it did not fit in with their real agenda of closing fire stations at night so they rejected it.

Sir Ken Knight's report is just a re-hash of the Bain report from 10 years ago, which was dismissed by the Government once it had achieved it aim, which was to undermine the FBU during their national strike. KK is no expert and has proved this on many occasions. He was all for Regional Control Centers a few years ago, saying the FBU opposition to it was just about the loss of fire-fighter jobs, even when the FBU produced evidence based reports saying they would not work he continued to say they would not only work but save the tax payer ?150m a year. Half a Billion pound of tax payer's money later the scheme was scrapped. Most people in the fire service take what he says with a pinch of salt. 10 years ago approximately 10-11% of a Ff's time was take up with attending incidents, it is now about 7%, 10 years ago a Ff did very little if any community safety work (not the same as fire prevention which we also do) , now they spend 12% of their time doing this work. The fire service has never been resourced by how often it is used but on risk, the risk to the public and Ffs, whatever happens you will still need enough fire appliances spread out across London to reach any fire that happens in a reasonable time, so there is a minimum number of appliances needed, the real question is what is that level? There are many reason why Southwark has more fires and other incidents than most other Boroughs, inner city Boroughs tend to have more at risk people living in them, more over crowding and poverty. I don't have the figures to hand, but Southwark as a Borough did approximately 28% more community safety work last year than the LFB target, one of the highest in London, in some areas they are leading the way on community safety, about 18 months ago Ffs from Southwark Fire Station devised a program to reach a high risk group and trailed it within the Borough, a lot of this work was done off duty without the help of the fire service, it is now being rolled out across the brigade. The FBU may try and protect jobs, but have also been a leader in fire safety, as they are experts, in the 1970s the FBU started lobbying to change legislation on building construction and materials used in furniture as foam filled furniture was a leading cause of fire deaths, it took the government and fire brigades a decade to listen to them, in the 1990s they leaded the way on pushing for the fitting of smoke detectors in residential properties and the education of the public, again it took until the 2000s for the government to take on this work (what they now call Community Safety). The LFB are now lobbying the government to have sprinklers fitted in all new residential properties and high risk homes, something the FBU has been lobbying for for years, this again will save lives. The FBU does not just say no to change, it has consistently pushed for changes in the fire service, not change for change's sake, or just to save money at the cost to the service it provides, but to improve the service and to cut costs. As a tax payer I am all for reducing waste in the public sector, but that is not the same as cutting the service you provide, the risk to the public from fire has not been reduced a great deal over the last 10 years, in some ways modern building construction has increased the risk to Ffs and the public, the fire service has just got better at dealing with it, modern equipment and procedures, better training, changes in legislation have all helped. In a lot of ways fires have got a lot more complicated to deal with, there are many more high rise properties in London than ever before, many with complicated layouts and fire related mechanical systems in them, it takes a great deal more Ffs to deal with a fire in a high rise than your standard house. We have taken on more and more roles over the last 10 years and the FBU are lobbying the government for us to take on even more. If as the FBU is lobbying for; every residential property was fitter with hard wired smoke detectors which would alert the occupier to a fire and allow them to get out safely and sprinklers which don't normal extinguish fires but just suppress them until the brigade arrives, I could see a day when the need for the fire brigade to attend a fire in such a short time could be relaxed and the size of the brigade reduced, but until then I want a well managed, trained and resourced fire brigade that attends a fire in a short enough time to save my life and prevents too much damage to my property. I have seen the devastation caused by fires and other incidents over the years in people's homes and businesses and the cost to people not just financially but the cost in lives. I work hard every day to reduce fires and to keep people safe when they do happen, if in the future there come a point when there is no need for a fire service I would willingly join the unemployed and looking for work even in these difficult times, as it would be worth it.

That is exactly what the LFB is relying on, people being taken in by statistic and averages, yes fire deaths are down as an average and have been coming down ever since they were first recorded in 1966, but in the Borough of Southwark they are not going down but up, 26 people died in fire related incident in the last 5 years up from 8 over the previous 5 year, the next highest was Brent with 18, no other Borough had more then 11 over the same period. Note this is over the same 10 year period you are quoting. Once again the national average is misleading, that figure includes attendances to the Highlands of Scotland, the middle of Dartmoor etc where there can be a 20 minute attendance time to a grass fire, the average to a residential property fire will be lower than that. As you say in Southwark the new attendance times do include the closures in them, but once again they are averages, so on some occasions the times will be much higher, only last week an appliance from Peckham took more than 10 minutes to attend an incident in the East Dulwich area this was due to it having been attending a call on another station's ground and picked up the call on the way back. This will only get worse when the cuts take effect, a fire can double in size in a minute so the effect that afire can have when the LFB takes a minute longer to arrive can be great. Not sure what point you are trying to make when talking about 7 appliance running out of 4 or 6 stations and the difference in cost, they are not just moving 18 fire appliance around, they are getting rid of them completely. The LFB has 169 standard fire appliances now there will be 151 if these plans go ahead. These proposals are nothing to do with a reduction in risk to the public from fires and other emergencies, but simple due to the Mayor cutting the budget, at a meeting the other evening Ron Dobson the Commissioner of the LFB stated that if it was not for the reduction of the budget he would not be recommending this cuts. Averages don't tell the whole story, so some more facts to think about: Number of times a fire appliance mobilised within Borough of Southwark in 2011/12=7071, 26% higher than the London borough average of 5602. Number of fires within the London Borough of Southwark in 2011/12=1215. 48% higher than the London borough average of 819. Number of dwelling fires within Borough of Southwark 2011/12=319,56% higher than the London borough average of 204.

I'm guess most people out there are unaware that the public consultation on the fire cut is underway and has been since the 8th March, it runs until 17th June 2013. You can take part on-line at http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/lsp5.asp#.UZPKBaKG2So it is worth reading all the supplementary document as the consultation document does not give the whole story, they can be found here http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/LSP5-supporting-documents.asp and the Ward attendance time can be found here http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/ward-impacts.pdf The London Fire Brigade (LFB ) is having it's budget cut by ?45M over the next 2 years and the only way they can see to make this saving is to close 12 fire station and remove a total of 18 fire engine from the fleet (this is approximately 10% of the whole of the LFB ). For the last decade the LFB has set an attendance time for attending an incident anywhere in London of 6 mins for the first appliance and 8 mins for the second appliance, they plan to continue with this target. Which does on the surface seen reasonable, but from the documents I have attached you can they don't make these targets on 31% of occasions now before the cuts. There are 5 Wards in Southwark which do not receive a 6 minute attendance now: College 7 mins 9 secs East Dulwich 6 mins 30 secs Newington 6 mins 10 secs Peckham Rye 6 mins 27 secs Surrey Docks 6 mins 21 secs After the removal of the second appliance at Peckham fire station and the closure of New Cross fire station there will be 6 Ward outside the 6 minutes East Dulwich will increase to 6 mins and 37 secs and Peckham Rye 7 mins 27 secs the worst attendance time in the Borough. Other station closures in South London will also have a knock-on effect for the people of East Dulwich, station that the LFB say will be taking up the slack when New Cross is closed and Peckham losses and appliance will also have to cover their grounds. Forest Hill will also be covering the closure of Downham fire staion. Brixton will also be covering the closure of Clapham fire station and Old Kent Road will be covering the closure of Southwark fire station. Not to forget that once New Cross closes the one remaining fire appliance at Peckham will be covering that closure. You all have about a month to have your say on these closures so please take part in the consultation, once the stations are closed and the land sold off they won't be opened again.

I give up, some people just don't listen or want to believe the truth, I have been clear, saving money and cutting the service we provide are not the samething. You all seem to believe you know what the fire brigade does and how it can be more cost effective and efficient by reading a report or two or from the media, but won't believe someone who has 26 years experience of the job from the inside. Why do you want to cut the service when you can have the samething for less? Good luck to you all

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spc it is well known and admitted by some fire > fighters themselves that they have had second > jobs. Granted it's not all but still let's not > pretend that some night shift fire fighters have > had an easy ride in the past. > > The LFS themsleves publish detailed annual > accounts as referenced in my posts above, along > with detailed data on call out's and types of work > undertaken. So to answer you question....I get all > my info from the fire service themselves, > including their own admission that they came in 5% > under budget last year. > > I don't know if the LFS can absorb the second 8% > cut in funding, but all the evidence is that it > can certainly absorb the first 6% cut. You might > not like it spc but quite frankly I'm tired of > arguments that try to alarm the public with tales > of death and serious injury being the outcome of > any change. As we've seen with recent changes (to > shifts etc) the rate of incidents and the outcome > of those incidents have not been adversely > affected. > > I am also equally tired of public service sector > workers accusing anyone that supports changes in > efficiency and cost etc as not being supportive of > those services (when we all pay into their > generous pension schemes). Some Firefighters seem > to have a hero complex imo. Nurses, paramedics and > Police all have to deal with life threatening > situations on a daily basis (hourly in some > cases), and all have seen cuts to their services. > They don't seem to need to remind us constantly of > the paitents they treat or the people they help > like some firefighters do. You clearly have not listened to what I have been saying, so I will try one more time. I am NOT against reducing costs. I'm all FOR increased efficiency. The new shifts have done nothing to help either of the above. Call outs only take up 10% of our time, so a 30% drop in calls is only a 3% drop in workload. Our work load has increased by 15-20% over the last 10 years, not reduced, who do you think is doing this extra work? answer Ffs. The outcome of incidents HAVE been affected by the changes. We take longer to arrive. The fire is more developed by the time we get there, more damage is caused, insurance claims are inceasing. Who do you think pay for this? There are more injuries to Ffs. Cutting the service we provide you will NOT save you money in the long run, better management will. I believe it is possible to provide a better service than we do already, but cost you less, don't you want that? I have not tried to alarm anyone. Have you heard the saying "lies, damn lies and statistics", the reports you are talking about are written for politians and senior managers to justify their positions and the large bonuses managers receive for meeting targets. I have given you examples of the half truths the brigade have given you to justify their position, if their accounts were so good you would know our workload had increased not reduced. You don't have to believe me, you can carry on with your preconceived ideas of what Ffs do and the service they provide you, what would I know, I've only been doing the job for 26 years. I have a job, I will still have a job at the end of this and yes hopefully I will get my pension which I pay 11.7% of my wages into (soon to be 14.8%) and I'm a taxpayer. SAVE MONEY YES EFFICIENCY YES CUTS NO If you can have the first two why would you want the third if you didn't have too!!!

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spc Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > MM said: Not good - trapped fingers are not what > I > > pay highly trained firefighters to be on > standby > > for. > > > > Tell me if your child gets their fingers > trapped > > in a bike chain, a plug hole (which I have had) > a > > washer etc what do you think should happen to > > them? leave them there until the finger falls > off? > > cut the finger off? Or call the fire brigade > who > > have the equipment, the training and the skills > to > > free them in time to prevent permenant damage. > > If the problem is a serious as you suggest then a > paramedic is far better qualified and experienced > to attend the emergency, not a firefighter. > However, So what equipment do paramedics carry to remove rings from fingers, fingers from chains, fingers from plug holes etc? answer they don't. They maybe experienced in many things (including treat people who have been trapped), but not removing body parts that are trapped, because they don't do it, the fire brigade do. We even attend hospital to assist there too.

MM said: Not good - trapped fingers are not what I pay highly trained firefighters to be on standby for. Tell me if your child gets their fingers trapped in a bike chain, a plug hole (which I have had) a washer etc what do you think should happen to them? leave them there until the finger falls off? cut the finger off? Or call the fire brigade who have the equipment, the training and the skills to free them in time to prevent permenant damage.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I second all of that MM. Nowhere have I suggested > normal emergency cover should be compromised > Jessie. My point was in response to a suggestion > that nothing should change in case we had a > 'chemical bomb' attack for example. Throwing in > unlikely scenarios to justify changing nothing > isn't a good argument for me. As MM eloquently > desribes......changes to the LFS over the past > decade have had some positive results, in all > respects. Change isn't always bad. Where are you getting your information from? What changes? What positive results, in all respects? No one has said all changes are bad, I have actually said there is room for change in the LFB which would save millions, but the changes that they will come up with will probably not save us the taxpayers a penny and may (I said may) cost members of the public and Ffs their lives

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think part of the problem is that that the job > of a fireman used to have a lot of down time, so > much so that some firefighters could hold down > second jobs knowing they could catch up on sleep > at the fire station. Many of the changes to the > roles of Fire Fighters have been in part to put > that down time to good use. Training and fire > prevention schemes are all good uses for that > time. And whether true or not, I think it > sometimes feels as though Fire Unions protesteth > too much at the idea that a full time job should > actually be a full time job. > > Most people in full time work, and especially in > the public service sector, are having to cope with > increased works loads and pay freezes. I don't > know if the Fire Service is currently under a pay > freeze, but if not,that might be a good option. > > As for shift work.....if changes increase > efficiency and save money, then change is right. > The Fire Service is not in a bubble. It must > change as other things change. Just shows how much you really know about what the fire service does, we have never had a great deal of down time during productive times of the day, how do you know that Ffs have second jobs? maybe it's from the leaked document management gave to The Sun newspaper last year, according to the LFB I do a second job, which is not true, as a Ff I have to register with them if I wish to part time, which includes let say, cleaning out my sister's gutters cause according to the LFB that's a second job. The shift change has done nothing to increase efficiency, in fact there is probably more wasted time during the day than there was before the change.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's nothing to do with the shift systems. > > You explicitly said that sickness and lateness had > dropped for the stations that DIDN'T change to the > new system. > > So nothing has changed except they're suddenly not > sick and actually turn up to work. > > How do you account for that? Remember - you can't > mention the new shift systems in your answer > because these guys have not been subject to it. In theory they are working the new shift, but with changes, which takes a lot of effort. Once again unless you understand how it works you won?t understand why they no longer go sick or are late. > > Regarding the FBU, all unions have an explicit > responsibility to improve the salaries, terms, > working conditions and perks of their employees. > That's how they get members. Not sure what the problem is there, again are you save you don?t want improvements to your conditions etc? But that is not all they do, they have a social conscience they try to improve things for everyone, education for their members (which is a benefit to the employer too), they put forward ideas of how to improve the service we provide, many that have been take up by the employer, although normally after many years of campaigning, they fight to changes in legislation to keep the public and their members safe, they fight for improvement in standard operating procedures and health and safety. About 20 years ago the FBU produced a document on how to improve fire fighting and the government ignored it, 10 years later at great cost the government did it?s own investigation and came to the same conclusion, their document was almost the same word for word as the FBU?s, they have links with Ffs around the world learning from some and educating and providing free equipment and training to others. > > It doesn't take a genius to see that increasing > salaries, holidays and perks for firefighters can > be in direct conflict with trying to create a more > efficient, better structured and more appropriate > fire service. Fire fighting over the years has always got move complicated, new equipment, new procedures, the work load has increased year on year (even before the shift change), we have taken on many more jobs, but the work force has got smaller, are you saying that people shouldn?t be paid for what they do? By the way, no increase in wages for 3 years, holidays cut, overtime pay cut, perks cut or removed (not that I would call many of them perks really). > > That's why they only give one side of the story. I would say they give the other side of the story to the employers and government. You seem to believe everything they say and nothing the union says. One example, the employers are saying calls are down by a third, so it?s ok to cut back on Ffs, only half the story. Calls only take up 10% of our time. work loads are up, community safety work up approx 5% year on year for the last 5 years, fire prevention work up year on year, new dimensions, line rescue, water rescue, life project, junior fire setters, CBRN, the list goes on, didn?t even exist a few years ago, I would say a 15-20% increase in what we do for 90% of the time, why didn?t the employers mention that, cause it doesn?t fit with their agenda.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well by your own logic, if we don't waste ?530m on > technology that doesn't work, we can make all > those cuts to funding without damaging fire cover > or personnel? That's right reducing cost does not have to involve cutting services. I and I guess most people would be more than happy to pay less for the same service, are you saying you want to pay more for less? > > That's the problem with FBU logic - it's not > logical. I did not mentioned the FBU, this is what I have seen having been a Ff for 26 years, but if the bosses had taken notice of what the FBU was saying the ?530M, plus a load of other amounts would not of been wasted, not that I'm saying the FBU are always right, who is, but they are experts in the field of fire fighting, you can't always believe what you read in the papers or see on the news about unions including the FBU. > > BTW, the fact that we've had cuts in the past is > no logic for not having cuts now. That's more of a > whinge than a reason. I'm not saying because we have had cuts already (even though they have been in the wrong areas) we can't have cuts now, what I am saying is we have aready made cuts in the areas the government say we can cut now, so the only real area left to cut is the front line, instead of saving money by better management. > > Also, if the stations who have not changed their > shifts have seen sickness and lateness reduce, > then surely that means that before this year there > was more malingering and skiving? Not a great > advert for the service, and evidence in itself > that things needed sorting out. You would have to understand how the different shift systems work to understand how wrong you are, but I'm not sure I could explain it to you. > > Most of your arguments are disconnected headlines > designed to 'shock', but the reality is that it's > all partial and misinformation. None of what I have said was designed to shock, the only thing shocking is it's true. All I have done is to try and put the other side of the arguement and how I feel savings can be made without cutting services. The LFB can make saving and still provide the service we all want, but the problem lies with the way it is managed and not with the so called "malingering and skiving" men and women who work hard every day trying to make the system work for everyones benefit.

3 of 3 As a taxpayer I am all for saving money and I believe there are ways of saving money, but that is not by cutting the service we provide the public. If we were managed properly by people who knew what they were talking about; and not by politicians we could save millions year on year. In London we wasted ?30M on a firehouse that does not work and nationally ?500M (yes half a billion) of a fire control scheme that will never come in; even though people in the know told them they were a bad idea. Look up Assetco the company that owned every fire engine and all the equipment in the LFB, who sold the lot for ?2, yes ?2 a few weeks ago. How the contract has not worked and is costing London taxpayer money. All our training has been out sourced to a private company, new fire stations are being built using PFI, even though the government themselves say in the long term these schemes cost you a lot more and are less efficient, but it is only way the government will allow you to do it. I could go on, but I won?t, it?s your service, you pay for it, if you don?t want to protect it that?s your choose. I just hope you don?t live to regret it.

2 of 3 The amount of fires are down, yes, but the damage caused is up, insurance claims are rising year on year and not just because of inflation, this is a hidden cost you pay higher insurance premiums instead of tax (by the way we don?t just do fires). Attendance times are up (you are waiting longer for the help you need). Injuries to Ffs are up as fires are more developed by the time we get there. The new shift is a joke, even senior managers can see it is not working and does not provide the efficiency saving they said it would, There are a couple of station still working the old shift and their efficiency is the same as everyone else, but their sickness, lateness etc is down.

1 of 3 I am a Fire fighter in London and here are some simple facts for you all. If you want to find them for yourselves go on the LFB website and look up the minutes of the Authority meetings. Over 80% of the over all budget is spent on people (wages etc), less than 20% is spent on buildings and equipment etc (over 90% for the operational side). The budget has been cut by 3-5% every year in real terms for the last 5 years. Most of these saving have been made from reducing "backroom staff" and functions or through efficiency saving, reducing sickness, overtime payments etc. ?50,000.000 of LFB reserves were taken by Boris in the last year and given to the Police. Only 10% of Ff?s time is spent going out on calls, we spent twice that on community safety work. The rest of the time is spent training, testing equipment, cleaning and fire prevention work etc.