Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[Marmora Man]

Kbabe01 Wrote:

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

> Theres a suprise!

What? That I've read the papers presented? That I believe the management position is strongest? That I've considered the FBU case?

What is your opinion of the three sets of papers? Do you find the union case well presented - does it put your views over well?

If I were a member of the FBU I'd be mightily p****d off that they had put forward such a weak and poorly argued case. I have rejected far better prepared papers from staff as being inadequate and needing revision.

[laincoubert]

I hoped my apology would have been good enough for you to let my earlier silly comment go, my mistake in the first place so shouldnt complain.

But this is an emotive issue, there is more to this than any one of us on here really knows about and surely being honest we are all a little predujiced.

So has everyone on here really read these documents in full? Or is MM the only person who is not debating with an inadequate understanding of the facts?

I will have a read and see if I can substantiate my predujiced point of view better

[laincoubert]

MM, could I ask, as I havent read these documents personally, Is it then the presentation of the case which is its biggest failing?

Or put another way, had the people who put together the 12/12 LFB paper put this effort into the 16/8 FBU paper, could this alternative shift pattern have potential to demonstrate a credible resolution?

Is it mainly the FBUs lack of skill in reporting and presenting which is the biggest weakness in their proposed solution?

[Huguenot]

Nah, I read them in full, but MM was making a perfectly reasonable case and it didn't demand repetition.

I read them in full because, well I wanted to know.

The rest of the battles about possible future outcomes seem without foundation. Fight and win arguments when they're real is my advice.

[DJKillaQueen]

They've just covered it on London Tonight - explained in simplistic terms as a dispute about shift patterns being unresolved and resulting in the employers action to cancel contracts and re-employ under new conditions. That seems pretty clear to me that the dispute is about shift patterns (whatever the rights and wrongs of each side's arguments are).

They also mentioned the behaviour by some pickets trying to stop engines from going out during that last strike. Engines that were responding to emergencies.....hard for me to condone that behaviour.

[Kbabe01]

The strike action is because of the sackings and nothing else. If the threat was removed there would be no strike. They are not striking because they havent got their way with the shifts. They want to discuss but the management refuse to discuss and have therefore started the process of sacking every firefighter in london if they dont sign new a contract. I dont care if its legal or if it happens with other peoples contracts its just wrong. Shift changes aside. Does noone else think its wrong to threaten them with the sack? This is the fire service? Whats next? Sack all police if they dont agree to work for free on a wednesday? Sack all nurses if they dont agree to not treat smokers? When does it stop? We should support our services. They are needed.

[Mick Mac]

They are needed yes but they need to be made more affordable.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Mick

Why do you think they are unaffordable?

Was anyone storming the walls before this strike thinking "you know what's breaking the bank here? Those firefighters"

When we all have our next work review are we going to suggest we make ourselves more affordable?

[Marmora Man]

Sean,

You know I'm not arguing about affordability of the firefighters but your question

When we all have our next work review are we going to suggest we make ourselves more affordable?

is a little naive - in every company I've been associated with over the last 12 - 15 months that is the very question that is being asked over and over again. How can we do the same with less or more with the same?

[Loz]

The strike action is because of the sackings and nothing else. If the threat was removed there would be no strike. They are not striking because they havent got their way with the shifts. They want to discuss but the management refuse to discuss and have therefore started the process of sacking every firefighter in london if they dont sign new a contract.

Am I missing the obvious here, but if the union is strong and everyone holds out then there is no way they are going to sack each and every firefighter in London?

[laincoubert]

Has anybody changed their minds or switched allegiance since the start of this debate?

I began pro FF and mistrustful of the ruling authority and remain so. I cannot see that anyone else has been swayed by any of the arguments presented. I also think its fair to say almost everyone prejudged this dispute and very quickly knew where they sat in this arguement. Does that say something about the nature of this debate?

[DJKillaQueen]

Firefighters are not being asked to work for free. There are simply being asked to work different hours for which they will be paid as normal. Every employer has the right to do that. How long is an employer supposed to take to negotiate before they can make a decision?

The real question is what is the purpose of changing the shifts/ hours. If we agree one consequence is to improve efficiency and therefore reduce cost, then the next quesion has to be if that is a good thing or not and for who.

I can't see from the documents posted by MM and so on any evidence that the claims that Londoners will have a less effective fire service as a result of the changes in shifts are true. Now that may be a failure of the Union to make their case but that is something that fire fighters have to take on board.

FFs are losing the support of the public. They need to understand why that is. Striking on Bonfire Night will further alienate those people whose taxes keep ffs in a job. Yes we should be grateful that anyone wants to do a job that puts them face to face with a danger that can kill them, but it's tax payers who fund those jobs, not the government.

[Marmora Man]

IainC

I remain prepared to change my mind but the arguments, presented on paper by both sides (and what I already knew of the dispute from reading a variety of newspapers of right, centre and left views) have persuaded me that, to date, the management case is the most logical.

It's certainly not about allegiance - that's as bad as patriotism. My country right or wrong = my trade union brothers / sisters right or wrong = managers must manage right or wrong. All very poor basis for objectively considering an issue

[DJKillaQueen]

Has anybody changed their minds or switched allegiance since the start of this debate?

I was ambivalent to begin with...but I am now coming down on the side of management, if nothing because of the use of the words 'being sacked'. Being sacked means you no longer have a job. This is not what is happening. The management simply want to change contract. It's a very different thing altogether. So what we are really looking at is termination of contract, and replacement with a new contract. The employer has every right to do that. I'm not saying I like that practise but it's the reality for most people who are employed I'm afraid.

[Moflo]

The FBU argue that it will not improve efficiency, 12hour day shifts are too long and detrimental to working practices. They argue that a 24hour system is better because of the regulated stand down times. Same applies for 8/16, that give day shifts a healthier 8 hour day shift, night shifts extend for 1 hour but again stand down times come into it. I do not understand all the terminology but I understand in principle. No doubt MM will put me right! Iaincourbert is correct,we all have our own opinions on this and I do not think anyone has been persuaded to change their minds by any of the opposing comments. I do know that the FF's are strong in their belief that the LFB has other reasons for the need of shift changes. The 12/12 system will allow the LFB to remove appliances and redistribute FF's thereby closing stations at night. That in turn will make response time longer and increase risks.

Some will not agree I am sure but I beg to differ!! Check out facebook page I support London Firefighters and read postings there and you will see the level of commitment.

[*Bob*]

The Facebook Page "I support London's Finest Firefighters".

"5,282 people like this"

It's not really a figure to be shouting about.. there are more firefighters than this involved in the action! Once you take into account family, friends, plus affiliated unions etc etc the figure is dismal..

[SeanMacGabhann]

Indeed so marmora. Only it tends to be a dialogue rather than a top down edict.

The times something has come down as a fait accompli, it has ended in failure. No union in my workplace of course, and im not arguing for one but i have seen bad, expensive mistakes made because of management intransigence.

In this case, as i have said already, the fighters are wrong to strike. But that doesnt mean i think the management proposals deliver enough to justify so much Ill-feeling.

The Workers should be annoyed with their leadership for not presenting their case, but equally it's a colossal failure of management to not be able to persuade their workforce of the merits of their own proposals. If I was a firefighter i wouldn't strike, but if i was management i would shelve the proposals pending further discussions. I don't see blame as being on one side

[Kbabe01]

Bob thats the wrong facebook page. The one moflo talks about is I Support London Fire Fighters. It has over 19,000 "likes".

[Moflo]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> The Facebook Page "I support London's Finest

> Firefighters".

>

> "5,282 people like this"

>

> It's not really a figure to be shouting about..

> there are more firefighters than this involved in

> the action! Once you take into account family,

The Facebook page "I Support London Firefighters"

19,727 people like this

200,000 members

> friends, plus affiliated unions etc etc the figure

> is dismal..

[*Bob*]

You're right.

Good God.. the Union can't even co-ordinate the Facebook campaign properly.

[nashoi]

It's a colossal failure of management to not be able to persuade their workforce of the merits of their own proposals

Exactly what I've been thinking. The management have acted like inadequate failures in using the threat to sack their entire staff and have lost the trust and confidence of the workforce. I know it won't happen, but I think they should be sacked and a new team brought in to rebuild that trust and return to negotiations.

[laincoubert]

Excellent points mr macgabhan, if these strikes go ahead next week then regardless of the outcomes I think it is fair to say management have failed badly and so have the union bosses. The shifts alone shouldn't be causing a fight of this scale and both sides must be held responsible for that. The union in particular though could certainly justify investing in some PR expertise though.

Loz asked earlier about whether they really would sack 5500 ffs if they held out and refused to sign.

In short yes, just not all at once. New contracts will be imposed in phases. Those who have served only a few years will be issued theirs first and they will get only one or two weeks to sign. If they don't sign yes they are sacked/unemployed. Once confronted with this choice, who won't sign?? These are guys who have just started out on a career and will be unlikely to have many alternative career options. If these guys did all refuse to sign, which just won't happen, the lfb will initially lose only a few hundred ffs, depending upon numbers they could adjust the strategy and timescsles for imposing these contracts on the remaining serving ffs. New recruits would all start on these contracts. So yes they can really threaten to replace them all and mean it, it is just a matter over how long they choose/are forced to spend imposing these contracts.

[laincoubert]

I know I have mentioned it before but how does everyone feel about their "divide and rule" deductions which quite frankly must be illegal?

My understanding is junior officers who previously volunteered to temporarily take charge of various crews and stations (other than their home stations) are being deducted 20% of their monthly wages.

When they perform these temporary deputising duties they earn an additional payment per shift, 5 or 10 pounds I believe.

When they are not performing these voluntary duties they earn their standard wage as determined by their real rank. So their refusal to perform these non contractual duties do not affect their ability to fully perform all of their ranks contractual duties, I.e there is no breach of contract yet they are losing around 500 per month now. This Is being contested by union lawyers but will no doubt take a long time to resolve. If as I am reliably lead to believe this will without doubt be ruled in favour of the union then eventually the money will be repaid plus any employer fine too. But in the mean time what a great way to heap pressure on certain union members and potentially financially break them into relinquishing their union membership. I'm only raising this to highlight how dirty this battle is bring fought by both sides and perhaps help explain why the mood of ffs is so resolute and they are so angry with their leaders. Interest in your views

[boosboss]

nashoi Wrote:

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

> The management have acted like inadequate failures in using the

> threat to sack their entire staff and have lost

> the trust and confidence of the workforce. I know

> it won't happen, but I think they should be sacked

> and a new team brought in to rebuild that trust

> and return to negotiations.

Well said!

[david_carnell]

It is, without doubt, a shocking way to treat a workforce whatever their profession. To threaten and carry out forced sackings in order to impose unpopular and unnecessary changes in working patterns seems both unwise and counter productive.

As has been previously noted, I have failed to see the need for this. It seems no one has a bad word to say about FFs and their performance. They do not want more pay. Nor fewer hours. Merely they seek to keep working patterns that have seemingly served everyone well for decades.

They are not merely defending the status quo - they are defending what works. To force through changes that bring seemingly little benefit and alienate vast numbers of your workforce seems to cut off your nose to spite your face.

I'm afraid arguments from those in other professions or sectors that squawk about how they wish they had such cushy jobs/lives are mere misdirection. If you want that, either become a firefighter or negotiate for better conditions. FFs have negotiated hard for many years for their package and they deserve all of it. And if you think FFs have it cushy, I challenge you to live a day in their shoes.

It is not all gushing praise though - dear God no. The FBU have behaved, yet again, like a relic from the 1970s with a PR and marketing campaign to match. To strike on the 5th of November would be hilariously ironic if it wasn't so petulent. Instead of highlighting all the good work they do on such an auspicious date the FBU will now look like pathetic schemers.

Whilst I fully support the right to withdraw labour as a fundamental human right (and that includes the emergency services), FFs and the FBU now have their work cut out hoping to gain public support for their settlement. They will also have lost the ability to appeal to more moderate Labour politicians that could have helped their cause. A shambolic performance.

I fear yet another setback in labour relations in this country off the back of this dispute - a sad end to a campaign that could have been a cornerstone in challenging poor management attitudes and the swinging cuts being imposed by this coalition government.