brum

Last week a firefighter friend of mine in Cleveland turned up as part of a crew to a house fire with people trapped. His was the only appliance to arrive as the original call was to rubbish on fire. There were only 4 in the crew, he was driver. Two entered the house with one supplying the water. He saw 2 faces through the smoke at a bedroom window. As the only person left, and without any time to don his his protective clothing (drivers normally dress on arrival) he pitched a ladder, broke through the glass and saved them just in time. He sustained cuts to his hands requiring stitches. If a second crew had arrived, he would not have had to risk his own safety to carry out this rescue. My point? That insufficient resources (fewer fire appliances) will mean that more lives are put at risk - both public and firefighters. Though sorry, I've still no stats or 'bullet points' to prove my point!

If only it was as simple as that. Producing evidence to substantiate a prediction, I mean. And presenting statistics as evidence cannot always be trusted - they are often used as a tool to hoodwink the masses, as politicians often successfully do. Putting it another way, the weight of attack at an incident affects the outcome. Timing is also crucial in a rescue scenario - the sooner we get there the better (It really could be the difference between life or death). If either of these factors are adversely affected by a reduction in fire cover, then it will show up in the fire statistics eventually, by which time, of course, it will be too late. The shift change proposals in themselves will make little, if no difference to the speed and weight of response. The issue is that the changes are seen as a precursor to a future reduction in overnight fire cover. Management deny this. Hence the dispute. Who is right remains to be seen, though apparently it is already happening in the West Midlands, which has come 4 years after similar shift pattern changes were forced through.

Shirty eh.....! I am simply presenting an alternative view to yours. You ask for facts but sorry there aren't any, just a wish to maintain London's provision of a first class fire and rescue service. Of course you can get a smaller service for much lower cost, but will it be as good? I honestly don't think so. But for me to prove it, sorry but I can't. My views are based on working in the fire service for 29 years and that's it. You don't have to agree, and I'm not fussed if you don't, but that's it anyway! And the same goes for bullet points too, Huguenot. I don't have a single one. Sorry.

Huguenot - The case has been made for the dispute and you have opted to reject it. That's your prerogative but I don't feel it's worth the effort repeating the case for you. So we will just have to disagree on that one. DJKQ - you are mistaken to think that firefighters have no grasp on the scope of the cuts ahead. We are all citizens just like you and indeed sometimes we read informed newspapers and listen to Radio 4! If you are content to allow your fire service to be cut, leading to reduced fire cover, then that is your prerogative (my word of the day, by the way) however others hold a different view. This does not make them ignorant, which is what you are suggesting.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > It's just hairpulling and > namecalling..... > > .....but we'd never have found this out if the > idiots hadn't gone out on strike, would we? So the > ffs have shot themselves firmly in the foot, and > are now so stupid they're publicising it. True to form, Huguenot himself resorts to name-calling when he knows he's losing an argument, but can't admit it!

Baked a cake Hired a painter and decorator Dressed as a woman Riden a motorbike ONE of the above is untrue.

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does my thumb look fat in this ( photo ) ? > > W**F If your thumb is the thing that's wrapped up, then it's blinkin HUGE! ...and your nail-biting habit is OUT OF CONTROL.

Green and Blue And what Woof said (well, the bits I understood, anyway...)

Thanks LM yes I am! And I agree completely with Iain's sentiments.

I'm really pleased that the strike is off. Surely we can all agree on this, at least? ;-)

See what I mean! All a bit strange, make no mistake.

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Some changes are needed but i am with Brum and the > boys on this. Thanks K. By the way, have you noticed that a couple of our 'boys' are acting a bit, well, strange? You know, like scratching their arses and making sexist comments stacked with innuendo.... whilst speaking with... (gasp!) Aussie accents?! I wonder who they can be? And I'm sure one of them is wearing a false beard. ;-)

I think that the key reason why its not seen as a 'normal' job, DJKQ, is that the core role of a firefighter is to save life. It means that where most people run out of a burning building, firefighters run in. I just stayed in a Firefighters Charity bungalow in Devon that was built from the money raised by the public after a firefighter was killed saving children in a house fire. The willingness to put their own lives on the line to save others sets them aside from construction workers, who I have the greatest respect for and understand that despite massive improvements in H&S their job is still hazardous.

DJKQ and Huguenot, I and several other firefighters have now contributed to this thread and we have tried to explain why this dispute has come to this point. And yet you both glibly derride our efforts. SMG, Keef, LB and others - thanks for at least trying to understand the firefighter's position. Huguenot - I merely questioned the relevance of your quoted statistics and asked you to reveal their origins. You are basing your argument around them so it is a reasonable request. Now, assuming that in Singapore you don't sleep for 2 days at a time (and I am no 'wally', so less of the childish name-calling please), can you simply answer the question?

Huguenot you aren't speaking for 'everyone' so don't claim you are. And no, DJ hasn't 'nailed it' as you say, far from it. Your bigotry towards unions is clear to see, and this is why you have taken a stance which is heavily biased in one direction only. Your assertion that supporters are misguided out of misplaced loyalty towards their colleagues and friends is yet another ludricous statement. You throw statistics at us claiming this is all the proof we need, yet when I questioned you about them you went very quiet.

DJ you mention militancy yet to me your views have been the most militant on this thread. In relation to fire cover, I support a flexible approach to this. It makes sense and there have already been big changes in that direction, such as moving fire appliances out of central London at night to the suburbs where there is greatest life risk overnight. There have been many other initiatives both in London and elsewhere which are focussed on reducing risk and have been successful in doing so. All this is being achieved using the current shift system and will no doubt continue regardless of any future shift patterns. However in this dispute firefighters fear that the brigade secretly intend to introduce more permanent changes that will go too far and want to make a stand, just as other firefighters have done elsewhere previously. Personally I am against strikes. However I do understand the reasons for the protest and that the firefighters feel poorly treated by management. I can't say I'm pleased about the way the FBU have behaved either, but we are where we are. What I also understand - and DJ et al don't seem willing to accept - is that this dispute isn't about firefighters wishing to protect themselves from changes that are likely to upset their 'cosy' working conditions. When assertions are made about this, it usually provokes a response from those who support the firefighters (and I include me here!)and so the debate gets deflected away from the real reasons.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brum, > > Most of the facts that Hugenot has referred to are > available on this thread in papers posted by Boss > Boss 999 and myself (I also posted the FBU > response paper - about three / four pages back). > However, few of those supporting the strike seem > to have read them or, if they have read them, > haven't yet been able to refute the points made in > the LFB papers. I ask the question because the source of statistics is interesting. And all are open to interpretation, depending on how they are spun. For example, the first statistic quoted by Huguenot about a 48% drop in the number of fires can be spun as follows: The massive 48% cut in the number of fires over a ten year period underlines the commitment by London Fire Brigade to reducing the number of fires through its proactive community fire safety campaign, carried out by firefighters who undertake home fire safety checks focussing on the vulnerable in society. What a fantastic result! And this was achieved by firefighters working to the existing shift system! So, what are the changes actually for? As I said earlier, the benefits of changing the start time and finish time of the night shift in respect of improving the efficiency of firefighters are not clear to me.... though a long list of carefully spun statistics can be very persuasive!

Thanks Huguenot, I'm impressed by your research, although I feel that some stats are not relevant - where did you find them? You have a very strong view of the Union. Yet politics is being played on both sides here - and some clever politicians use statistics very effectively to back up their claims. I suggest you try and take a more unbiased perspective and realise that the firefighters are not so bad as you may think they are.

'the 48% less bit' sorry, DJKQ, you added that after I read your first post. So can you tell me, what is that statistic to do with this dispute? Why is it relevant?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > H on the other hand has put it eloquently > in this point; > > The FACT is there are 48% less fires in London > than there were 10 years ago. That this is down to > fire prevention education and support, and that > this is a wiser and more efficient way of spending > ffs time than by sleeping through 30% of their > paid salary time. > > Would any ff like to dispute that? Please read my post timed at 16.31

'something more appropriate and economically sensible'..... hmmm, please elaborate. During the night - between midnight and 6 - it is not possible to do fire prevention work and any change to the shift start and finish times will not change that. Some prevention work can be done before midnight and is done so already - by the night shift. The only real difference these shift change times will make is that some evening work will be done by the day shift instead. I really can't see the benefit these changes will make to productivity or efficiency. 'sleeping through 30% of their paid salary time'.... having worked these shifts for a good few years, Huguenot, let me tell you, I have never slept for that length of time. Not once. And the only time I came even remotely close was the rare event when we had no shouts through both night shifts. And whether there are no shouts or twenty, the same level of fire cover is needed. We are an insurance policy. That is what you pay for. I am not a person resistant to change. If there is a good reason for it, then I will support it fully. But when change is being forced through and I cannot see the benefit, then I will speak up. Personally speaking I hate the vitriol brought about by strike action and words such as 'scab' - they are damaging and detract from the cause. Most firefighters are not Scargillites, or rebelrousers, they are just normal people doing an exceptional job. And they care about their profession. Of course, it will all end in tears and both sides will try to claim a victory, but the employers will get what they want. I try to stay out of this thread as much as possible but sometimes I'm drawn in, and then I read views like Huguenot's and I have to say something. I know they aren't comments aimed at me personally, but all the same, I am hurt by them, because they insult my colleagues, my profession. I accept that everyone is entitled to their view, but sometimes, their view is just plain wrong.

Smoking a clay pipe. I'm older than you think.

I too have worked the watchkeeping system at sea. And I have simply tried to explain to you the difference between firefighters and normal night shift workers. I haven't assumed anything about your knowledge of shift working, but you clearly haven't worked night shifts on a fire station, as I have. You're right to say that firefighters on station have to drive at speed to get to an incident as quickly and safely as possible. When the bells go down, they dress and are on their way in seconds. In London, residents can expect a very speedy response, not only because of this, but also because the level of fire cover is very good - this is one of the big reasons why firefighters are so angry, because they believe that the changes are a pre-curser to a reduction in this fire cover. Fire Officers mobilised from home do not have to arrive so quickly, but they have to drive to incidents on the 'blues' and can have a very responsible role to take when they get there - making life or death decisions possibly. The differences you claim aren't that great.

This is such a circular debate. It could go on longer than 5 years at this rate! At the risk of contributing further to it, I feel I have to make this point, yet again... MM - you mention 'greater productivity' as if firefighters are night shift workers in a factory. They aren't. They provide a 999 emergency service. At night, they can't do the 'productivity' stuff, like community fire safety visits, fitting smoke alarms, training with their equipment. They are simply on-call. The Fire Commissioner is also on-call at night time, except he can do it from his home - just as I did, as a Station Commander. And I am sure he sleeps, as I did, with his pager alerter next to his bed. This system has been around for decades and it works perfectly well. So, it doesn't make sense to keep firefighters awake just for the sake of it. There are no 'productivity' benefits to be had at night time. Its a pointless argument to compare them to 'all other night shift workers'.

Bob-a-job Week