Huguenot

I give it up? You're joking right? I'm one of the few who's tried to provide any sensible contribution to this debate.

It never pays to underestimate the litigous nature of some elements of the general public. Besides, there is undoubtedly a mission statement somewhere about fighting fire and the causes of fire to their best of their ability. This rejection of clearly beneficial shift changes on the basis of an imagined capitalist plot is tantamount to negligence.

I'm saying the ffs poorly informed, and they've chose bad allies (like the RMT) to get into bed with. They're operating on gut feel and prejudice, not informed consent. Regarding the hundreds of people who may die in fires, put it this way: Around 750 people die in fires every year, down from around double that ten years ago. That means both the FBU and LFB are both saying that there are 750 people who are alive this year that would have been dead 10 years ago. Both groups attribute this to fire prevention. Only a 15% improvement in lives saved by additional resource applied in fire education and prevention through simple shift changes would result in, yes, 100s of lives saved. "you or the FFB have a solid case for prosection, much less dismissal of the ffs" EXACTLY my point earlier!!!! Bloody hell, you're starting to get it! Whilst the firefighters didn't know this 10 years ago, they now do. If they know this and didn't act on it, then just like the tobacco manufacturers, they would be guilty of gross negligence and open to class actions.

"I want to understand correctly. Are you (question) suggesting that if these changes don't go through hundreds of people will die because of outmoded practices?" Both the FBU and LFB attribute the 48% drop in fires over the last 10 years to fire prevention and education. However, not everyone has had fire prevention and education visits. It stands to reason that if both the FBU and LFB think that fire prevention stops fires, and you put more resource in that area, that there are going to be less fires. If you claim otherwise you're simply being bloody minded.

They are all facts. The ffs day is allocated according to strict schedules, the new schedules allocate 7 more hours in every 48 to 'core activity'. Risk at work after 12 hours is double what it is under 9. The lack of motor function and reasoning power after 12 hours is the equivalent of being over the drink drive limit. Children's 'family' time is calculated as the time in which they are not at school, and they're not in bed. Firefighters will be home in this period for 2 more hours with the changed shift. Fire incidents are detailed by time of day, and the new schedules change the shifts to when these figures are lower. Currently 65% of incidents happen on the night shift. After the new schedules it's only 35% They're all just facts. Conversely the firefighters have no facts, just smear and innuendo. "Why not step back and think maybe there is more to this than meets the eye?" Well mainly because it's a stupid idea to base decisions on the fact that there might be an ogre in the cupboard when there's documented evidence that walking around naked isn't good for your health.

So your argument SMG, is 'don't be as good as you can be unless someone is complaining'? The thousands of fires that didn't happen this year, the hundreds of people that are consequently alive this year should have burnt and died because the general public didn't specifically ask the firefighters to do a better job ten years ago? Don't be daft. These changes mean more fires won't happen, more accidents won't happen, more kids will spend more time with their parents, more people will be healthier. And because nobody imagines that bad things will happen to them, none of them will even know it. But you'd take all of that away for some spiteful management bashing? Good show.

The changes DO affect everyone. They mean more resource will be applied to fire prevention, which is proven to be more effective and useful than firefighting. They mean a 15% increase in effective time for firefighters - giving the public more firefighting bang for their buck They give firefighters' children more time with their parents They mean that people who are victims of fire won't have firefighters that are so tired they might as well be drunk They mean more firefighting resource will be availble when the risk of fire is highest They mean firefighters will suffer fewer health problems that are a burden on them, their families and the taxpayer If you support the firefighters then you are effectively saying that these reasons are less important than management bashing. The sheer selfishnesh of that approach makes me furious. I struggle to accept that firefighters would deliberately spend less time with their children simply because they're sulking that 'management' didn't ask them nicely.

The correct spelling of background is background. It's been incorrect in both versions of the flyers that you shared with us ;-)

I didn't say I wasn't emotional - in fact I think I said I was infuriated? That's two arguments you just made up so that you could win them: the first being that someone insisted changes should be made because managers should be left to manage, and the second that I claimed to be right because I was unemotional. Why can't anyone come out with anything sensible in support of the ff position? Is it simply bacause there is nothing sensible in their position? *Steam coming out of ears*

Things are rarely 'necessary'. Inventing fire or the wheel wasn't 'necessary'. I certainly don't support the management regardless. In fact you only have to read back a few post to see me criticise them outright. However, are the firefighters are refusing to do something which is a clear improvement on current practices just because they don't like the way they were asked? This is what I call immature posturing. It's foot stampy 12 year old girl activity which doesn't look good when performed by grown men. Even brum has failed to present any logical arguments that prove the current shift system is better. All he's been able to do is state that he must be right because he doesn't like other people's statistics. This is only a semantic difference to trying to win an argument by calling everyone else liars. I have still yet to see an argument from anyone in support of the ffs that says anything other than 'ffs should be able to do what they want coz they're heros and everypone hates lying managers'. What a load of trash. *Edited for spiling.

Brum, don't be a Wally. I didn't go quiet, I went to bed. The point about the reduction in fires is that a ff job has changed. Instead of staffing up for fire fighting, you need to be applying more resource to the extremely effective task of fire prevention, which happens when people are awake. This is a manifestly sensible approach - find out what you're doing well, and do more of it, find out what is needed less, and do less of it. It's not exactly rocket science is it? Neither do I have it in for unions. Sean, no-ones saying FFA don't do a good job, they're simply saying it makes sense to apply resource where it's needed. If at the same time it makes people healthier, less risky and allows more family time then it makes sense. It makes sense that is, until you get a load of bollocks left wing dogma chucked in and management bashing gets confused with insightful argument.

The thing that really winds me up on this is that the ffs aren't just cutting off their own nose to spite their faces, with actions like that on Nov 5th they're cutting off everyone else's - innocent bystanders and all. The reason why everyone's fed up with them is that even if they can't articulate this argument, they know it.

It does sound like it doesn't it? A list of postcodes sounds suspiciously like a contractual restriction in a franchise application. Doesn't get away from the fact that cake baking is a sound enterprise, and well worth the support of a local supplier. Paul, you know there's a WI locally? They're very young, attractive and outgoing - but into things like cake and judo. Incidentally, ?

"But it is a recurring theme of those arguing against the strikes isn't it? Management must be free to manage" No it's not SMG, and frankly it's infuriating that you're trying to move the goalposts. The theme of those arguing against the strikes is "Capitalise on informed policy to do your job wisely, healthily, capably according to the demands made on the service" The response is a stupid childish "Feck the managers, we fecking hate managers, don't tell us what to do, if I want to jump off a bridge I fecking will" The tired rebuttal of that is "Will you please grow up and let the managers manage" "Management must be free to manage" is a despondent acquiesence that by and large the argument against this perfectly sensible shift change is stupid immature posturing. I don't think this means everybody - there have been very reasonable supporters of the strike on this thread. I think they invest their colleagues with undue good faith, and they'll end up with an eggy nose simply because they had bad luck with the friends they choose. I don't think DJKQ's views on this have been 'militant' at all. Outspoken certainly. However unpalatable her views are I secretly think she's nailing the issue. The FFs aren't being saints, they're being obstinate boneheads who should question their own motivation.

I see no real distinction at the moment between the thoughts of DJKQ and mine. It's reasonable and well thought through.

If you missed it before, here it is.... a list of the reasons given for the change of shifts. It recognises that the world had changed since the original shift periods were laid out, and more insight is available. Here's a few of the points regarding the changing world: - There are 48% fewer fires in London than there were ten years ago, attributed to better fire prevention education - Retail hours have changed from 9am - 5pm to an average of 8am to 8pm. - Shift changes are not now corresponding with demands upon the service. They LFB are now wiser to the effects of the current shift pattern: - Fire fighter fatigue from long shifts results in 'slowed reactions, poor judgement, reduced cognitive processing of information, and an inability to continue performing a task, or carry it out to a sustained high level of accuracy or safety - The HSE states that it is law that the employer takes these findings into accout when planning shift patterns irrespective of the employees desires - For the first 8/9 hours in a shift the risk of accident in firefighting is flat, but after 12 hours the risk doubles - 58% of calls happen during the nightshift, when the long hours and fatigue massively increase the risk of error. This needs to be corrrected. - The current working time directive recognises that when workers spend 18 hours awake (as they are forced to do frequently during the current shift patterns) the effect on risk is as high as that of a drunk driver. - The sleep deprivation created by the current shift patterns have a long term effect on firefighter health, particularly with obesity and digestive disorders. - The LFB is under a legal obligation to apply information it has to decrease risk and increase effectiveness in the workplace, to fail to do so would open them up to the kind of class action experienced by tobacco companies - The new patterns offer 7 hours more productive time to each firefighter per 4 shift period, increasing the efficiency of the brigade - The new patterns offer increased family time (i.e. when children will be awake) to firefighters from 11 hours per shift to 13 hours per shift - It enables staff to equably 'swap shifts' without offering unfair day/night exchanges In other words the proposed shifts are a closer match to modern society, offer less risk to firefighters, offer a safer community, offer more productive time per shift, offer more family time to firefighters, and make a positive contribution to their long term health. They're just better. The Union don't care that they're better, because they've sold firefighters up the river on this campaign based on politics.

Well I hate to say it, but the logic for changing shifts seems as obvious as can possibly be. I've heard the logic, as I described earlier, as clear as day for changing the shifts. But heard nothing so logical in response?

At the range yesterday for first time in months. Good Heavens I hurt today. Apparently my hans were too far from my glans. Instability vs glamour. Never the same mistake again. Up and down yeah? Barstards.

But this seems to have been a process ongoing for several years? Is this really a surprise ultimatum or a demonstration of exasperation?

Great thread this. When people accuse me of winning debates from 'clever words' this is where I learn them.

I appreciate that the management don't seem to have dealt with it well. Doesn't make it wrong though. Where's the ED team when they need a resolution? Mind you, judging by the militancy of some postings I doubt that any intelligent management was ever going to succeed?

I appreciate the flip-flopping chaps but this contract was drawn up decades ago when the world was a different place and the insight into workplace consequences wasn't well known. The world is a different place and the TUC rule 188 was drawn up with the full agreement with the unions with this in mind. The firefighters' intransigence is a reflection of an unwillingness to accept that the world turns, demands are different, insight is better, and that it's clearly in the best interests of the firefighting demands of both the firefighters and the public. It makes me wonder whether you're being sucked into politics as well?

Hi untamed stylist, I think it's great idea. I love to see initiative and investment, and I really hope it'll be the first stop on a styling empire! Advertising is a mathematical business based on calculating a 'return on investment' Basically you need to work out how much you spent on creating the campaign, and how much you got back on it. For the spend you need to calculate not only the cost on design, printing and distribution, but also your time and energy. The first three are usually easy as you have receipts. To calculate yor own personal investment then you need to decide how much you value the time. Don't call any of these zero. Even your own computer cost you hardware, ink and paper. Letterbox dropping cost you time - which has a value. What's your target hourly revenue? How much time did you spend? Add these together and you get a 'cost per campaign'. Divide the 'cost per campaign' by the number of bookings you make as a result. This gives you a 'cost per booking'. The styling itself costs you hardware - scissors and trimmers get blunt and wear down. How many hours do they last? What is the sharpening or replacement fee? What's that per hour? Per person? What do the styling cosmetics cost? How much per person? What then is the cost per person? Add in your hourly rate. The total of this is the 'cost per style' Subtract the 'cost per style' from the 'cost per booking' and you get a profitability figure. Now compare the effectiveness of different flyers. Do some in capitals, some in sentence case, some with different pictures, some with your photo and qualifications on, some without. Make sure each flyer has a different code on it. When people ask for a booking ask them what the code was. You'll find that each flyer has a different profitability figure. Do more of the flyers that gives you the best profitability.

Anyway, bedtime now, you can have the floor unmolested ;-)

:)) just having a bit of fun. But I think the govt. made clear the lack of recognition for the herbalist movement was down to the fact that they didn't think it was appropriate that herbalism should be given an equivalency with EMB.