Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[Huguenot]

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.

[Huguenot]

"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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

They are facts up to a point - given those facts I'm surprised we have any fires put out at all. How DO they manage it eh?

And those facts aren't the sum total of facts and lack context. I'm not dismissing them (and I've agreed with many of them) but they aren't, in and of themselves, enough for me

Firefighters have more than smear and innuendo. they have years of experience on the job that you and I don't have for a start

I'm more equivocal than my recent posts have suggested on the whole rights and wrongs of the dispute. But the manner in which people have laid into firefighters has been rather alarming to me. I don't subscribe to them being angels and I don't subscribe to management bashing for the sake of it

But presumably previous changes to work patterns and job losses had similar reasoning to the current dispute? And in those instances the union accomodated them. this time they aren't. So I don't think JUST THOSE facts alone are enough for us to decide one way or another.

[SeanMacGabhann]

You cherry picked the quote again.

You specifically left out the bit about hundreds of people dying

"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?"

I'm not suggesting that more fire prevention won't reduce fires at all. I don't think the ffs are saying that either and their rejection of THESE proposals is no contradiction of that

What I asked you was, given that it saved 100s of lives in the last decade, is the refusal of the ffs this time, tantamount to them condemning hundreds more to death. That seems to be what you are saying - which makes it either a smear to surpass smears, OR you or the FFB have a solid case for prosection, much less dismissal of the ffs

[DJKillaQueen]

Brum, I get very irritated with the argument that 'we can't accept these changes because of the changes we might be asked to make in the future'. Surely any future changes would require seperate negotiation and may well be a cause that I support depending on the issues. In THIS dispute though there are no issues that threaten ffs or the public.

And to be honest I wish those of you supporting the dispute would make your mind up as to what it's really about. The lack of clarity and as H says the shifting goal posts are why the FFU are losing the argument and debate....and the fire fighters themselves are being poorly led by bog standard union tactics and fodder.

Yes the shift changes are sensible. Necessary, yes because they increase productivity and efficiency which in turn means better value for the public money spent on the service, and a better service. Both very important at a time of public spending cuts.

And H (returning the compliment) has been absolutely spot on with his data, and the points he raises about improvements in efficiency are born out in evidence from similar shift changes brought in accross other fire services.

For the FFU to oppose them (including the offered compromise of 11/13) says they don't want a more productive and efficient service (possibly because they think it will down the line lead to job losses).....they don't want the taxes used to employ them, provide them with expensive pensions, and so on to be more cost effective......?

Obviously the average ff is not thinking in those machiavelian terms but from outside looking in (from which ever way you look at it)...any member of the public can be forgiven for concluding that self interest is at the core of this dispute, rather than it having anything to do with public service.

[DJKillaQueen]

Just to add that another reason why fires are falling is because new builds have far more fire safety aspects to them. Renewal of electrics (with higher minimum standards of fittings) and other fire hazards in our bouyant housing market over past decades has also negated the level of fires caused by faults in those things. And hopefully it is a downward trend that will continue.

Ultimately that has meant that the contraction of the fire service over recent decades has been perfectly reasonable. Not a happy lot for those who lose their jobs, but nonetheless reasonable in a service that requires public money, and can not be offered as some argument for suggesting the aims of management are to destroy the Fire Service down the line in this dispute.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'll agree with that last post dj. We don't disagree on everyth

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'll agree with that last post dj. We don't disagree on everythIng

[Huguenot]

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.

[DJKillaQueen]

:) At last Sean lol.....

[SeanMacGabhann]

Except my tongue was in my cheek h. Can you see such a case happening? I can't. Absence of provable facts being one of the main reasons

[Huguenot]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Again with the over emetic, words in mouth smears. Give it up

[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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

You have provided lots of good debate. And then you make up thinks like "imagined capitalist plot"

[laincoubert]

Those supporting LFB management are placing a lot of faith in their proposals which are backed up by their carefully selected stats. For me, I dont believe the management can be trusted (see earlier posts regarding changes and subsequent closures and cuts in west midlands). That is of course quite a criticism and one which many will dismiss as being unfounded, I know, but you and I the paying public can think what we like, our opinions on that matter will shape nothing. It is the workforce who have zero faith in the management and their intentions/methods and they have of course flocked to the relative, if misguided safety, of union support and sticking together.

I would assume Mr Dobson covets a political career (his lump sum is payable in less than two years now) following in the footsteps of his predecessor Ken Knight MBE (Bob Neils Fire advisor, nice job following huge retirement payout, LFB served him very well). Mr Coleman craves notoriety and sees this as "his" moment to shine. And Mr Johnson, quite possibly the real driving force behind the current methods, is quite rightly distancing himself from the details in public to ensure he does not taint his reputation with that of Coleman, in case LFEPAs appointed leader should get shot down in flames (excuse the expression) over his mishandling of this situation.

If the management do not have the decency to argue with transparency, to lie in effect, then they are hardly going to be capable of taking the workforce with them, and FFs who believe they are fighting for their livlihoods are inevitably going to want to, well "go down fighting" at the least.

The union do not do themselves any favours with some of their publicity, although prior to announcing November 5th strikes, one might wonder if they had any publicity at all, but I am beginning to wonder how much public support rally matters now.

Especially considering the Daily Mail and the sun to name but two of the national tabloids who have made it their mission to slur FF's names and ensure that they are regarded as feckless greedy scum. Again, much of the stats used by the Daily Mail look suspiciously like data that has been leaked by the LFBs 39 strong media comminucations team, which if true shows quite how dirty and downright scandalous the management are prepared to stoop in order to crush the revolt.

Certainly any disaster on Nov 5 blame will be laid at the door of the FFs. But the insurance companies will be getting their compensation from the LFB.

No dramas over November 5 weekend and FF's will be seen to have been overstating their importance and the credit will go to the LFB.

Either scenario FF's win no victory and no support. However come the end of november those that do not sign will be unemployed and those that do will have a new contract which means 12/12. In either instance public support doesnt help them one bit and the FFs though their reputation damaged forever will be forgotten while the public feast on the next public sector group targeted and villified to give the mob figures to hate.

[DJKillaQueen]

That's quite a pursuasive summary Iain until the final sentence. The public are not feasting on any 'public sector mob figures'. The public are simply asking a question of the reasoning behind the ffs dispute.

Look at the RMT tube strike action of today for example. Their issue is the planned 800 job losses. We all know the tube network is crumbling, that it needs massive investment. We all know as well that ticket offices close in some stations for more than half the day because of no staff to open them.....and indeed many stations are not staffed at all for some parts of the day/ night. So there is sense to the union stance that further reduction in staff will affect an already understaffed (in their view) network (which the public may or may not agree with).

Whereas the FFU stance is that if we give into these shift changes (which in themselves are sensible), what next?

The public aren't stupid. They can tell the difference between various disputes and then make up their minds accordingly on which to genuinely support.

[spc]

Hi all,

I have not read all the posts on here, but i would like to make a few comments.

Firstly the brigade say we have been negotiating for five years, that is not true, for four and half years they said it was 12/12 or nothing, they only started negotiating (which they have to legally) after they started the process of sacking us all.

They say we are unwilling to change, this too is not true, we have been changing working practices, conditions and increasing productivity year on year for years through agreement, in fact we have beaten every target they have set us for at least the last five years.

We have made three offers to the brigade, two give them the same productivity increase they say they want and one gives them more, yes MORE, but they will not agree to our offers. Why? you may ask, that is simple, they don't give them the ability to close fire stations at night.

We may attend less fires at night, but you are three times more likely to die or be injured at night, you need the same amount of Ffs to deal with a fire during the night as a day, in fact you probably need more as the fire takes longer to be noticed and therefore is bigger by the time we get there.

We are willing to change, to increase our work load, to do whatever it takes to protect the people of London, what we are not prepared to do is have un-necessary changes forced upon us that will cost people their lives and property, put our lives at risk when there is not enough of us to deal with an incident.

This could be sorted in an hour if the brigade were willing to talk, to listen to the people who know what they are talking about, instead of bowing down to the political will of a few politians who don't.

Stay safe everyone and make sure you have a working smoke detector.

spc

[laincoubert]

If the fbu offered to call of the strikes in return for a 11/13 contract to be reviewed in a year (but without strings, just like the 12/12 sought by LFB ) do you think the management would accept?? it would seem reasonable to me, surely enough of a compromise to be worth accepting to avert the potentially distasterous consequences of any assett co failure on the 5th!

Personally I do not think they would however which must beg the question, what are they actually doing during negotiations? If they refuse to budge on anything, then there are no negotiations, it is a farce and this war of attrition will continue until one side runs out of resources, inevitably the FFs.

I have now read the document supplied by MM a few pages back, and I only see a extremely well presented case for change, but certainly not the bullet proof strategy to get more value from the London FFs which some profess to have found within its pages.

For one I see no real monetary savings from 12/12. Contrast to this the huge expense of this dispute (PR, policing, compensation to insurers, surveillance and last but not least Assett co) surely the presented potential benefits do not outweigh this? not to mention the immeasureable damage done in the division between workers and management.

Management incidently, many of whom quit the union in the run up to the strikes following a meeting with the LFB leaders. My sources have not found out what was said, but rumour is that they were threatened with something and offered an incentive of some sort to quit the union and break strike. Whatever it was must have been persuasive as a large number quit the union immediately, although worth remembering that some have remained in. (whatever was threatened/offered surely will not have been worth it for the senior officer arrested Monday and for GBH and dangerous driving following his inventive but brutal strategy to get through a picket line in a brigade vehicle. Not relevant I know but a shocking development).

The time period between 18:30 up to 22:00 and beyond if necessary is currently available for community work on the night shift, usually limited to the fitment of smoke alarms in domestic properties (why people require the fire brigade to do this is beyond me). On the current day shift, these duties are available between 14:00 and around 16:00 (not including AM avaiability). So the time where community work cannot be scheduled is 16:00 to 18:30, which coincides with rush hour funnily enough! Conveniently enough I should say as this would not be a good time to be travelling and visiting homes.

12/12 will allow different period of evening time to perform this work. 15:00 until 18:00 will be an available time on the day shift. Then 20:30 until 22:00 and beyond if necessary. So 18:00 until 20:30 are the unavailable times. Surely these would be the best time to go to peoples homes! After rush hour but before it becomes late.

For one there is not a massive difference, certainly not enough to justify pushing the workforce to the point of striking and imposing these hours anyway!

But secondly what do they gain/lose? On the current system they are unavailable during rush hour 16:00 to 18:30. A sensible time to remain at station and do station based activities in the absence of any distress call outs.

On the proposed system they are unavailable between 18:30 to 20:30. Seems like they lose the best possible time to visit people, in my opinion anyway.

I see only very dubious/debatable improvements being implimented on to a service who has never failed an audit and achieved huge fire reductions already. I would however be interested to see what the call stats are for other types of calls as I would wonder whether flooding, broken lifts, car wreckages, chemical spills and the numerous other types of calls has changed much. Although no doubt future plans to refuse to attend these types of calls would probably be penned in secret to achieve further statistics which support cuts. To hell with the people who need them and have no one else to turn to.

For me everything about the management approach feels wrong. If you trust everything they say then ok i can see why you will discredit the FBU proposals and staunchly support the managements right to manage. You will not be able to sympathise with the complexity of the FFs position. But if you can consider that just like the tabloids (you do all know that FFs do not ever earn anything like ?40K PA dont you? despite what the mail says earning are around ?33K with earnings up to around ?34k if a lot of overtime is performed), the LFB management are happily prepared to lie with their insidious methods in order to achieve their aims, then you may be able to see why the FFs would feel they have little choice but to fight in the way that they are.

So for me something whiffs about this dispute, the potential gains, even if their predictions are correct, which as I have shown is debatable, simply do not warrant the actions they have taken. This seems to be an attack driven by a few people in positions of great responsibility who are forging ahead with huge resources available to them and who will use these resources in any way they wish in order to win. It seems to me that the winning is what it is all about and that is very sad for me and for the people stuck in the middle of this struggle.

Either way this dispute is looking so murky to me that Im beginning to doubt that in this instance public opinion is worth very much to either side.

[laincoubert]

DJKQ, I think what I tried to say is that once this dispute is passed, the murdoch media will wish to villify another group of public sector workers in support of the con-lib cuts. Of course the public will be free to make up their own minds, but we will not be helped in doing this objectively by reading the daily rags who do like to persecute sections of society from time to time.

[laincoubert]

And one last question for now. Assett co?

This company secured the contract for one reason only, to be a strike breaking service. There is very little to suggest that the LFB with 5500 FFs would ever need their assistance in the course of even the most serious disaster so we can safely assume that this was considered money well spent to ensure that FFs had very little bargaining power when the contracts got looked at.

Surely there was another way which could have averted todays fight and seen that money used much more wisely

[spc]

DJKillaQueen:

There are less fires now than 10 years ago, not sure about 48%, but when there is a fire you still need the same amount of Ffs to deal with it, unless you can tell me where the fire is going to be (and then I can prevent it happening) you need enough Ffs and fire appliances spread evenly across London.

It's like fire death are down too, but they have change the way they count fire deaths, if a person is rescued from a fire and then dies in hospital from a complication it's not a fire death, if a person jumps from a window to escape from a fire and dies it's not a fire death, if a person is drunk or on drugs when they die in a fire it's not a fire death.

Statistic are a wonderful thing.

You say people don't go on strike because of altruism, they do in the fire service, as I am one of these people, 12 hour shifts in themselves would have little effect on me, I'm not saying I want to work them I like the shift I do, even though there are many unsocial things about it. If it was just a change of shift I would not be striking. To be honest I am doing it for selfish reasons, when I'm not working I and my family and friends are being protected by the fire brigade, I don't want them to die as much as I don't want you and your family to die (well maybe a like more, no disrepect intended).

Just to make things clear, this has nothing to do with pay or conditions, they have been and are taken them a bit by bit all the time. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but I'm not going to strike about them.

Bonfire night maybe one of our busiest nights, but it is normally a night of busy doing nothing, last time i work on bonfire night we attended about 10 firework/bonfire related incidents, at only one did we do anything, which was to damp down a bonfire and give some advice. most of the time we were called out by people who were moaning about other people enjoying themselves outside their homes, they had called the police who had done nothing and thought calling use would help. It is the busiest night for accident, not fires. It the brigade that want you to believe that it's the worst day of the year for us to strike on, so you think we are only striking for ourselves and hope you don't look for the truth. If you research you will find that people are no more at risk from fire on bonfire night than any other. The people who do die, die in deliberate fires, if the person wasn't using a firework they would be using a can of petrol.

We could have just walked out and stayed out until the brigade was willing to talk, instead we are trying to have as little effect of the service we prove as possible, but we only have until the 26th Nov to sort this, so are building the action up slowing and spreading the action across the 4 shifts so we all do the same amount of strike day, it's not easy to pick and choose what days you do without effecting some more than others.

Stay safe everyone and make sure you have a working smoke alarm

spc

[DJKillaQueen]

Hi spc...it's not true that negotiations were only offered in August. I posted a letter eariler than shows that the FBU knew about the proposed changes to shifts SIXTEEN MONTHS ago. So what was the Union doing during that time? The 90 day consultation was invoked with the rule 188 because the Union failed to come to any agreement.

Can I suggest you do read the thread because the debate has been detailed and intense and many of the points you make have been covered and I don't want to repeat myself :)

[DJKillaQueen]

what we are not prepared to do is have un-necessary changes forced upon us that will cost people their lives and property

There is absolutely no evidence of this and in fact it is backed by the fact that accross other fire brigades where shift changes have been implemeted there has been no increased risk to the public....this point has been made again and again so can we please stop with the attempts to frighten the public with unproven assumption.

Iain is correct in the points he makes.....the union are not interested in any kind of compromise whatever you may think spc...their behaviour over the last 16 months demonstrates that clearly. There is certainly a 'whiff' about it all and it's ffs themselves who are being drawn into the middle of it.

I accept the points you make about Nov 5th but you are deluded if you think any of that action will make any difference to the LFB. You were offered the 11/13 compromise. Your union turned it down.

[Keef]

so can we please stop with the attempts to frighten the public with unproven assumption.

Once again I point to this

they put themselves first and don't give a toss if anyone dies on Nov 5th

You can't have it both ways, and your tone on this thread is incredible!