Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Sigh...you are not being sacked you are being

> asked to sign new contracts....an entirely

> different thing altogether. And just as any

> employee in ANY sector chooses to sign or leave

> the job the same is for you. We can disagree on

> the reasons why the new contract is or isn't

> suitable or good but the fact remains that

> terminating contracts and issuing new ones is a

> normal part of UK employment practise for the vast

> majority of employees, and fire fighters need to

> understand that.

>

> Also MOST of the public sector workers I know (and

> I know lots) chose the public sector because of

> the job security, employment rights and strong

> unions and generous pension schemes. So it's

> absolutely not true to say that people choose

> public sector jobs out of some altuistic sense of

> duty to the public. All the ffs I know all joined

> the fire service because they thought it would be

> an exciting job to do. Many of them are ex

> military and thought their skills would be

> relevant. None of them joined out of an over

> riding sense of public duty. So that's another

> myth that in my view, and it is just my view,

> that's being conveniently peddled to try and give

> credibility to the FFU stance in this dispute.



I did not say EVERYONE joined out of an over riding sense of public duty, I said "I" did and I know many people who chose the job because of the good they would be doing and not for the money, pension, union etc.


I did not even know there was a pension or union, I didn't even ask how much money I was going to get, that may make me a little mad (looking back I think it too), but once again it is the truth.


The fact that terminating contracts and issuing new ones is a normal part of UK employment practice does not make it right, what is the point of a contract if one side is able to change it at will without agreement.


I think it is only employment law that allows it.


Maybe the fact that you are willing to except that as OK while I don't, goes a long way in explaining why we diagree about this whole issue.


I'm sure I will never be able to change you mind, so I will leave it there.


I wish everyone on here a long, happy and safe life.


spc

Definitely good news for all. Shame that Coleman along with much of tomorrows press are claiming a victory over the fbu. I had hoped the management would take the moral high ground and drop the 188 if only to avoid exposing public to unnecessary risk at a dangerous time and shame theft some what. In the end it was the fbu who did this postponing strike action in spite of colemans refusal to offer any assurances over contract impositon. Quite the opposite in fact he gloated over their step down as a victory rubbing their noses in the fact they had won nothing, while of course blowing their best opportunity to stretch the resources of assett co to breaking point.


They have I suppose sacrificed an opportunity to score a ko blow to management in the interests of public safety and no doubt due to the wishes of their members. I hope they are not now trounced by management and that their sensible decision to abandon this strike does at the least score some pr points as well as providing London with the insurance against disaster that the city requires at this time.

Well my dear EDites, I suppose this is more or less the end of this topic........ or is it? We will see. I thank you all for taking up this post and was amazed at some of the comments, but as we are all different is stands to reason that the opinions would go the same way. I agree with Iain on most of this. I am gutted that Coleman and Dobson will try and turn this to their advantage when it could all have been avoided with a bit of common sense and good will! See you all after arbitration?

Arbitration is the best route......and probably the result will be 11/13 with a provision to review after 12 months (and revert back if necessary). And yes, Coleman and the LFB would do best to be humble at this stage. Ego on both sides has definitely driven some of the dispute. Now it's time for good will.


Thank you for providing such a stimulating thread Moflo. And I hope the outcome is one that both sides can be happy with.

If you've lost the argument, Moflo, I should start attacking the people.


In particular I think dragging up uncorroborated evidence of silly behaviour in the past is a really constructive approach. Maybe choose something at least 6 months ago?


Or longer? How about his schoolfriends?


Perhaps we could call him names?


What about photos, have you got any photos of him picking his nose or something?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Seems to be lot of words to say parents should be supervising their children properly and adults should not be cycling on pavements. 
    • There are two causes for this problem   The first is that modern safety requirements for cars (to protect pedestrians and cyclists in collisions) mean huge amounts of excess spacing in crumple zones to provide a cushion on impact. For example, in the past a lot of pedestrians suffered catastrophic head injuries when they ran in front of a car, because the bonnet was close to the engine block, so their heads bent the bonnet into the solid immovable engine and their heads cam off worse. To mitigate that there is now a huge amount of flex and space so that the head is cushioned from the engine. Naturally, the rest of the body work and car frame has had to increase to accommodate this safety measure.   The second issue is electrification.   Electric cars are massive because they have to carry huge batteries around to make them work. Massive amounts of space and height is given over to batteries in electric cars. The new electric Renault 5 (described as a "compact" hatch back) is nearly 4 metres long 2 metres wide.    That makes it longer and wider than the original Range Rover. 
    • Pretentious status vehicles.  Last year I was trying to drive down my own street but, being in a little, inferior car, was expected to make way for a stream of SUVs / Chelsea tractors as they barged along beside me. After what felt like an age, I saw a window of opportunity, but was beaten to it by yet another tank. By this stage I was irate (I hate the things) and having a full on shouting match with myself behind the wheel.  A Tesla in the oncoming queue pulled in, flashed and courteously allowed me to take my moment. The Tesla's windows were tinted, but not so much that I wasn't able to make out the driver, as I passed him. I'd recognise that mega-watt smile anywhere. It was Peter Crouch, laughing and giving me the thumbs up, clearly entertained by my tantrum. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...