Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[legalbeagle]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> I mean for the proposed london changes. Just so

> we know how much better off the public purse might

> be

>

Well we don't know the answer to that. Management have not admitted that the shift changes are a prelude to reduced fire cover at night, it is as assumption based on a pattern shown in other parts of the country. Since they haven't admitted it, and we don't know how much of a reduction is planned, it follows that we don't know how much would be saved.

[SeanMacGabhann]

But it is a recurring theme of those arguing against the strikes isn't it? Management must be free to manage, we as taxpayers, efficiencies etc. I'm just surprised Noone has a target figure for this amount of aggro

[legalbeagle]

Well perhaps they do somewhere, but I don't know what it is. And yes it is a recurring, and frankly depressingly uninspiring theme.......

[DJKillaQueen]

But there is no evidence that the public are at risk from any of this which has been one of the main points made by ffs in defence of their reluctance to agree with night time cover changes. H made the point that there are 48% less fires at night for various reasons which we all understand. Whether that in reality means fewer very busy nights with mostly non evental nights, or evenly spread incidents that just mean the night on night workload is less I don't know. Either way though, any change in need should mean there should be no issue with changing cover or shifts to reflect that.

Historically in the modern era, all the big unions refuse change and fight tooth and nail to make it as difficult as possible for management to do anything, so that militancy in itself is no suprise. In this dispute, the union are not winning the debate, and they and ffs need to look at it again and understand why. Striking on November 5th is just wreckless.

Ultimately though, the power is with management - whatever side anyone might fall on.

[brum]

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.

[Huguenot]

"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.

[Huguenot]

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.

[brum]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Catchy slogan that

[SeanMacGabhann]

But if you are irritated and wish to claim reason as your friend then

Isn't going to help as it doesnt represent my position or that of the firefighters

But let me ask you why you are so willing to dismiss the views of those doing the job regardless of how inarticulate you find them? You constantly quote how much safer and healthier the proposals will make everyone but I don't see any evidence to suggest the job is not being done safely and healthily. And unions are usually a stickler for those factors

[Keef]

I'm quite disturbed by the fact I totally agree with everything Sean, and earlier, D_C, have said on this thread.

[Huguenot]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I haven't read much left wing dogma on here. And I'm willing to bet a large number of the strikers voted for the Tories this time

But as I've already mentioned, this union has adapted to the changing world several times in the last decade without striking. Thousands of jobs went, new work was taken on and all without striking. So they don't strike me as a militant bunch. And nor am I. I have had to manage truculent teams if wasters after mergers and know the mentality all too well

So, in this case only, it strikes me the management read a book on management and how to demonstrate you are top dog only for it to backfire and they won't back down. That's their choice and their right. But it doesn't mean we have to support them regardless, JUST because they are management. I have read the proposals many times. Well, you keep posting them after all. I agree with you Huguenot they appear to be sensible. That doesn't make them necessary tho. They don't necessarily fix anything. And this union with no record of striking despite the previous changes appear to find them a step to far. That's a point worth listening to

[Huguenot]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

So, not emotional at all then.

[Huguenot]

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*

[SeanMacGabhann]

Apologies if I'm conflating things but I havnt invented any arguments to win them

The ffs have been accused by several people in here of being over emotional and therefore dismissible. You may not have been one of those people in which case sorry again

No the wheel was necessary but it sure changed things for the better for everyone. These changes will affect nobody in any way, other than to piss off a workforce. That's just not good management and helps nobody

[Huguenot]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

And these are problems now are they? I think not.

[SeanMacGabhann]

The public have not been even wondering idly, much less debating furiously, about how they need 15% more firefighting bang for buck for example. And if these changes do or dont go through without the publicity nobody would be any the wiser or give a flying fuck

And then you put words in my mouth. Effectively.

[SeanMacGabhann]

How many people, having been rescued froma fire look at the fighter and think with disgust "this person is a zombie! Their shift patterns put my life at risk!!!"

Maybe people should sue firefighters more for being so irresponsible

[frierntastic]

For me the core of this argument is that firefighters continue to put their own self-interest before that of the public. As Huguenot says, we can make a 15% increase in FF time - so let's do it!

It's about time the FF realised that when it comes to public service, the clue is in the title.

[Huguenot]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Again with the words in my mouth. At this rate I'll be as angry as you

I am not management bashing. I am criticising this lot for their stance in this dispute You present that list of proposals as if they are all facts and will happen. They are targets.

When you type above "I struggle to accept.. Why not step back and think maybe there is more to this than meets the eye. Why discount the unions behaviour in previous changes? Why not even allow the possibility? Why take the view firefighters are jobsworths not interested in impoving firefighting just because they're not accepting these specific changes?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Sorry to quote you again, but 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?