Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[DJKillaQueen]

Any ssupport I had for the FFs has now gone...and the only people to blame if anyone dies on Nov 5th in a fire, are the striking so called professionals who think they should retain perks and working practices that are unrealistic in the current economic climate.

Sure, in an ideal world we should all have decent pensions, levels of pay, hours etc...but the harsh reality is that we don't have an economy that can support that...and I for one begrudge being asked to support public sectors workers on above average wages who seem to think that any suggestion they should compromise is an attack on their right to exist, or disrespect by us for the job they do.

Btw thew there are around 3 million unemployed some of whom would jump at the chance to train as fire fighters and earn that kind of salary and do whatever working hours the management require.....ffs would do well to remember that.

[DJKillaQueen]

Native you clearly haven't read this thread in any detail. The idea that FFs are beyond criticism is galling. They've cynically picked one of the busiest nights of the year to strike.....for nothing more than maximum effect, because they put themselves first and don't give a toss if anyone dies on Nov 5th.

[native]

too true a fireman is for life and they save life more importantly , a lot more than our banker's and politican's !!!

[native]

djkilla i dont need to read this thread in detail , you have the knockers,and the supporter's , i know who id want dampening down my gaff on the 5th if a firework was to spark a blaze at my abode . Simple .

[Moflo]

Ill say it again for those of you who cant grasp it! These strikes are because of the threat to sack. NOT because of changing shifts. NOT because of money pensions or "perks". Money will stay the same. Pensions will stay the same, "perks" whatever they are, will stay the same. The ffs are striking because they believe (and it has been proven on a document leaked from the lfb), that the 12/12 shifts will result in night closures of certain stations. This is FACT. Believe it or not this is the reason for the strikes. Why dont you go to your local fire station and ask them. Instead of believeing everything you hear from the press just ask the people involved.

[DJKillaQueen]

djkilla i dont need to read this thread in detail , you have the knockers,and the supporter's

Yes you do because you don't understand the points that the 'knockers' as you metaphorically call them are making. To comment in a debate and have no interest in reading the content of that debate is just lazy and shows a disrespectful lack of interest in any view but your own.

MOFLO these strikes are not as a result of the threat of sackings. They are as a result of the managements desire to CHANGE CONTRACTS. Sacking means no more employment. Change of contract is something most employers have a perfect right to do. AND had the union made more of an effort to compromise instead of the usual 'we ain't changing nothing' then the management would not have had to resort to an enforced change of contract.

FFs should blame their union if they are looking for excuses and scapegoats.

[Huguenot]

Moflo, you've just contradicted your self in the same paragraph:

"These strikes are because of the threat to sack. NOT because of changing shifts."

Compare this with:

"The ffs are striking because they believe that the 12/12 shifts will result in night closures of certain stations."

So that's because of changing shifts right?

The threat to sack is not related to night closures, its related to intransigence on behalf of ffs to change shifts to something more apprpropriate and economically sensibe for the 21st Century. If the ffs don't want new contracts, then they should be thinking about compromising instead of letting children suffer through negligence on Bonfire Night.

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.

[Loz]

native Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> djkilla i dont need to read this thread in detail

> , you have the knockers,and the supporter's , i

> know who id want dampening down my gaff on the 5th

> if a firework was to spark a blaze at my abode .

> Simple .

Who you want and who you get are very different. Somehow I don't see you turning away AssetCo on the 5th in hope one of the normal crew turn up.

As for everyone coming down to neat sets of 'knockers and supporters', well life is a bit more complex than that.

> Why is that wrong then ? because they plan to strike on the 5th ? maybe it's for a reason have you ever wondered

> loz ? i understand fully !!! Not rocket science is it ?

OK, I'll take you up on that. Why are they striking on the 5th, native, instead of, say, the 3rd Nov or the 8th Nov? If it is 'not exactly rocket science' then you should be able to explain that. The only logical explanation I can see is 'because they want to lose all public support for their cause'.

[native]

Excuse me djkilla im lazy and dont read things properly ? is that your view then ? seriously , lets get real you would like all public servants to shut up and behave and not to question authority ? the london fire brigade can cause upset by striking so people like you and the other knockers on here saying sue if you have a fire on the 5th !! As far as im concerned the fire brigade is fighting against privatisation of it's service , you knocker's will be happy when we end up like the U.S.A .. pay for the air we breathe , ER rooms no NHS, insurance for everything , and the shareholder's running our fire service !! Never heard so much toot as SUE on the 5th if your unlucky enough to hava a fire on the 5th , god help us all with comments like that !!

[Kbabe01]

Like Moflo said go and speak to a fireman because it is clear some of you have no idea what they do. This strike is not because they dont want to work 12 hour shifts. Its because they know if they do change the night cover for YOU and YOUR homes will be reduced. FACT. This is why the 188 was issued. To force them to sign this new contract. LFB wont listen to any other option. All LFB need to do is lift the 188 and talk without the treats. They wont. FBU suggested 10/14 and 24 hours. If they are prepared to work 24 hour shifts 12 is not problem for them is it? So if as you say they just dont want to work 12 hour shifts why put 24 to the table? Because they know 1 12 hour day and 1 12 hour night can be made into 2 12 hour days to leave the night cover to assetco. THATS what they dont want. Their pay wont change. Yes their family life will be affected and of course they dont want that but these people work bank holidays, christmas weekends whatever so family life is disrupted anyway. This is about the bigger picture. Im not denying the ffs could have got more public support if the didnt decide to strike on 5th november but on the other hand there was hardly a mention of this dispute and the strike 2 weeks ago until 5th november was mentioned. Please dont try to tell me what this strike is and isnt about because you have just read it in the press. Go to the station and talk to an actual person involved and then make up your mind.

[native]

id say the strike is going ahead on this historic date the 5th of nov , because they want maximum affect , let's see how asset get on ? maybe people will respect and understand what the real brigade do all year round , and as far as fire and me on the 5th ... maybe il take extra insurance out ?

[Huguenot]

"As far as im concerned the fire brigade is fighting against privatisation of it's service"

So it's not about contracts, it's not about being sacked, and it's not about shift patterns then?

"You knocker's will be happy when we end up like the U.S.A"

So it's not about privatisation either? It's actually anti-americanism?

How the hell did they get involved? Coleman's in the pay of Halliburton?

[Loz]

native Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> id say the strike is going ahead on this historic

> date the 5th of nov , because they want maximum

> affect , let's see how asset get on ? maybe people

> will respect and understand what the real brigade

> do all year round , and as far as fire and me on

> the 5th ... maybe il take extra insurance out ?

It's classic union 'make the public suffer to make an impact' tactic, but I think it will backfire for the FFs badly. Two scenarios: 1) The worst does not happen, in which case management will take the credit and make it look like the FFs have overstated their case or 2) The worst does happen, in which case the public and the media will turn on the FFs for striking on the worst day of the year.

If I were a FF I would be seriously unhappy at my union. Public support is needed to win any fight like this and the FF union is throwing a lot of goodwill away.

[Kbabe01]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "As far as im concerned the fire brigade is

> fighting against privatisation of it's service"

>

> So it's not about contracts, it's not about being

> sacked, and it's not about shift patterns then?

Its about the shifts being changed in such away it paves the way for nightime cover to be privatised by assetco.

>

> "You knocker's will be happy when we end up like

> the U.S.A"

>

> So it's not about privatisation either? It's

> actually anti-americanism?

>

> How the hell did they get involved? Coleman's in

> the pay of Halliburton?

LOL

[Kbabe01]

Loz i think you have a good point about the 2 ways it could go. I think the union could have handled it a bit better but still support the ffs. I think if there is an incident with lives at risk ffs would break the picket. Just like they did 2 weeks ago. I dont think anyone wants to see people hurt over this. In fact even if Coleman himself was to catch fire i think they'd break picket to help :)

[native]

i was talking about the suing comment huggybear ......

[brum]

'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.

[native]

dont mention fire kbabe01 there may be law suits flying around after the 5th , busy time for the legal profession ?

[native]

Well said Brum , fireman , firelady , the fire brigade , it's essential to all of us , i hope nobody comes to harm on the 5th or any other day, i understand and support . Good luck all .

[DJKillaQueen]

Native you are incapable of rational debate so whatever you say sunshine.

Kbabe.....I know exactly what firemen do...so keep your assumptions to yourself.

Now the claim that altering shifts will increase risk to the public is nonsense. The FFU have provided NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to prove that claim. 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 (the 48% less bit)?

People don't strike out of altruism...they strike because they either want better pay and conditions, or they don't want to give up some aspect of pay and conditions.

And yes please do enlighten us all as to the thinking behind striking on November 5th...

Comments like it hasn't changed for 30 years so why change it now, I think perfectly show the intransient attitude that gets many people wound up - because common sense knows things change all the time and we have to change with them.

[brum]

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

[DJKillaQueen]

But the point of less fires?

I remember the same dialogue being levied many times whenever a fire station was hit with planned closure. There were strikes and the station closed anyway.....but there turned out to be no increase risk from any lack of cover. It was always a false claim.

I feel that part of the argument is 'little boys crying wolf' instead of a straighforward honesty that the ffs are fighting the 'inconvenience' of the new contract rather than for anything proven to be a true risk to the public.

[brum]

'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?

[Huguenot]

Once more for Brum, here's 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.

[native]

djkilla what uni did you go to then ? im in ore of you totally , you are so intellegant , im so sorry i cant grasp the arguement , and sunshine .... who me ? have you seen the weather today ? where is it ? lets hope it pisses down on the 5th keep them fires down !!!