Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[brum]

DJKQ and Huguenot, I and several other firefighters have now contributed to this thread and we have tried to explain why this dispute has come to this point. And yet you both glibly derride our efforts. SMG, Keef, LB and others - thanks for at least trying to understand the firefighter's position.

Huguenot - I merely questioned the relevance of your quoted statistics and asked you to reveal their origins. You are basing your argument around them so it is a reasonable request. Now, assuming that in Singapore you don't sleep for 2 days at a time (and I am no 'wally', so less of the childish name-calling please), can you simply answer the question?

[Keef]

I am generally a fan of Huguenot, and he makes lots of very good points, backed up with good evidence.

However, he has a terrible habit of devaluing all of this good work, by stating his own opinion as absolute fact, and misrepresenting what other people have said. It is poor form, and beneath the man.

[legalbeagle]

Both DJKQ and Huguenot seem to think that they know better than people who have done the job in question for years, and that level of self confidence always amazes me. We are all entitled to an opinion, but when faced with a debate about, oh I don't know, building bridges, I'd be inclined to think that an engineer might know a wee bit more about it than me. I'd certainly do a passing impression of listening to them and considering what they have to say. Just in case an entire career's worth of experience on their part taught me a thing or two. Statistical evidence is only part of a story, easily manipulated and open to interpretation. And that's all those of us who haven't done the job being debated have to go on.

I've advised famous clients several times on matters that dominated the press at the time. And I was amazed at the difference between what was actually going on, and what was accepted in the public domain as going on. We should all be a bit careful about total and utter conviction that we are absolutely right. That's not a discussion. It's a tedious and self important monologue. You might as well stand in front of a mirror and just keep talking.........

[Keef]

Round of applause to that woman!

(you are a bird aren't you?)

[legalbeagle]

Thanks Keef.

(and yes, I am a bird!)

[Huguenot]

brum, sorry mate, I thought you were being snippy.

The entire researched case study is available as an attachement on my post in around page 2 or 3 of this thread ;-) It specifies all studies and sources.

If you don't like what you see, then you can't call them liars and be done - you have to find better research.

If people don't believe the change in fire stats they can find all the data here

The 48% figure is from the annual stats not the six monthly - but if you look back over 20 years (to only 1990) they've dropped even more.

[legalbeagle]

And all of those improvements made whilst working the current shift system.........

It ain't broke. Why are we fixing it?

[Huguenot]

I'm quite prepared to listen to other people's point of view, but when you reach page 17 of a debate and there's still no substance apart from "they're all out to get us" it gets a wee bit tedious.

As for "That's not a discussion. It's a tedious and self important monologue", well maybe you're right, because those in support of the firefighters have really been open minded and interested in anything beyond their anti-management paranoia haven't they?

Anyway. Now you've started ad hominem attacks on myself - the only person who's really tried to add any sort of information to this blessed debate. Great. Genius. What importance an effective fire brigade when we can turn this into an argument about whether we like Huguenot?

[Huguenot]

leaglebeagle, your comment only repeats a question that has already been posed and responded to - recently at that.

Well done for demonstrating that you haven't even bothered to read the thread before launching an ad hominem attack on me.

*raises glass*

[*Bob*]

It seems they're not prepared to listen, Hugenot.

Have you considered strike action?

[legalbeagle]

I don't need to argue about whether I like you Huguenot. I do like you. So end of argument. This is not a personal attack, it is a point being made about the style of this thread. I don't like arguments that aren't atually debates because those engaged aren't listening. Which, like it or not, is how both you and DJKQ are appearing to some of us. I'm sure that someone as intelligent as you knows that how you say something is almost as important as what you say.

Further, I am not anti management, and I am not paranoid. That's just something that you throw into this debate every time someone disagrees with you. Rarely have they actually shown either trait in their posts.

In fact if you had listened to what I have been saying you would know that I don't support strikes. And if you had listened to others on this thread you would have heard plenty of reasons why your views are not necessarily completely and utterly right in every respect. It's just that, since you have no respect for those alternative views, you've rubbished rather than listened to that evidence.

Doesn't mean I don't like you though. So don't go getting all flouncy again.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I tried saying that a few times - didn't get me anywhere

[legalbeagle]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> leaglebeagle, your comment only repeats a question

> that has already been posed and responded to -

> recently at that.

>

> Well done for demonstrating that you haven't even

> bothered to read the thread before launching an ad

> hominem attack on me.

>

> *raises glass*

Oh stop getting your knickers in a twist. The last five pages have consisted of nothing but people repeating themselves whilst ignoring everyone else. You've just noticed?!

[Huguenot]

;-)

[legalbeagle]

If there were a smiley face thing that stuck its tongue out I'd insert it here.

[SeanMacGabhann]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:YTOR7wQnke9kFM:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s293/lcrayton/smiley_guy_sticking_out_tongue_lg_c.gif

[Huguenot]

SMG "I'm not anti-management" takes the biscuit.

How about this one Sean - "This management team are the only impediment to that from what i can see."

That's hardly equivocal?

"It seems obvious to me there're is more to it than meets the eye"

That doesn't sound like your pushing innuendo about a 'plot' at all?

You're trying to twist the knife because you think you've got the upper hand on 'reasonable' here, but us elephants have long memories.

[SeanMacGabhann]

now you are joking surely? Me pointing out this managements deficiencies doesn't make me anti-management. I have repeated this exact point many times. I have backed it up with my experiences in management. I just disagree with THIS lot. Not hard to get is it? But you don't have to extrapolate to a false conclusion from there

I don't even know if you are deliberately winding people up anymore

You have ignored anything I have said that doesn't suit your argument

And why do I think I have an upper-hand? Or I'm twisting a knife? How so? You are just getting personal and flouncy now - so used to you getting your own way in an argument.

And what long memories are you talking about?

[Huguenot]

SMG, I'm not trying to wind you up at all. I'm most offended that you're insisting that you're not anti-management whilst describing them as 'the only impediment'.

I'm also offended that you claim that I'm the one making stuff up, whilst you trot out phrases like 'more to it than meets the eye' which are ONLY ever used in connection with deception or duplicity.

The implication of those two statements is quite clear - that management are involved in a destructive deceptive plot.

You are right that this debate has angles, but with all due respect the only people informing it and being straightforward are failing to see the strength in the ff argument. Those who support the ffs have been talking about 'plots', 'sackings' and offering consistent misdirections (such as your comments about my views).

I appreciate Keef's point, but if anything the crime has been to be both blunt and to the point. Not something you could accuse the ffs of.

[SeanMacGabhann]

oh FFS

(see what I did there?)

however it's normally used in your world, I'm using that phrase to make the same point I have made already, and others have also made - ie you and I don't know all the facts so what meets the eye is the propoganda put out by both sides

And you are offended I have accused you of making stuff up? Well you are making up stuff about what I've said because i don't recall accusing you of making stuff up. I have said many times the fact you repeat facts which seem reasonable (from the FFB) don't amount to the whole story

Unlike many of the ffs I don't believe management are out to try and deceive them (but I wouldn't rule it out completely to be fair). But I am saying this management team (not management as a function in an organisation) have fumbled badly and are on a face saving excercise at this point.

But I'm reluctant to bother anymore as you appear to be taking offence willy-nilly, as well as putting words into my mouth and reading implications that were not there (see more to it than meets the eye)

Yours in jaysus

[Huguenot]

Intellectually offended, not personally. I enjoy a good humored brawl.

It's like legal beagle with her "if it ain't broke don't fix it". It's misdirection. If she has a good wine she moves it to a prominent position and gives it more shelf space. If she has a menu item that sells less than others she changes it to improve it. Nothing's broke - it's just an improvement.

Same with the firefighters. Job focus can be improved, health can be improved, family time can be improved, risk factors can be improved. No-one has suggested fire-fighting is broke.

[DJKillaQueen]

Sigh...H they think if they say it enough and pat each other on the back, their inability to present a good counter argument (beyond 'I know a fire fighter or two') will somehow vaporise.

And yes I am getting stroppy as I always do with anyone that can't leave personal insult out of debate. It's ok to agree to disagree.

No member of the public has to be a fire fighter to have a say on something they pay taxes to maintain. FFs don't pay my wages but I pay towards theirs. So if the service can be more productive and efficient then that's what I want, if it saves money then even better. I happen to believe that the presented shift changes will achieve this because it has done exactly that elsewhere. Some may not agree with me on that but it doesn't mean I'm wrong or that my view is not a valid one.

For all the accusations that MM and H and I are derogatory to ffs (which we are not), I could also retort with 'pot calling kettle black' over the cynicism of a Nov 5th strike and a lack of gratitude for the unnaffordable pension we provide for them (because you wouldn't get that in the public sector buddies).

Let's just accept there is never going to be any agreement on certain views expressed on this thread instead of trying to bully each other into agreeing. Too much 'I must have the last word' going on I'm afraid.

[legalbeagle]

Not misdirection at all Huguenot. Just asking why we should tamper with something that is working very well when the benefits are, in my view, questionable at best, as are the motives of management. These are concerns that in other fire services around the country have proved to be very well founded.

And DJKQ, no one has resorted to personal insults other than Huguenot, who has since apologised. The point I am making about the way something is said is very valid in any debate. If you appear not to be listening, and to be rubbishing your opposition, you are far less likely to win support, and far more likely to remain unreasonably entrenched. In fact if nothing else, this thread has turned into an exact replica of the union and management inability to hear each other.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Interesting that H's examples were all objects, and then he compared that to the Ffs situation

Using legalB as an example is also instructive - a manager who knows she has to treat staff both with discipline AND keeping them on board has led to one of the Lane's success stories. But that experience when applied to the FFs counts for naught

DJ - that was the most self-congratulatory post I've read on this forum, much less this thread. As a taxpayer I want efficiency and value for money too but as I've asked you many times just what kind of value you expect to get from this isn't clear. Push these proposals through all you like - I doubt the proposed efficiencies will materialise with a pissed off workforce - THAT is a management failing

[Huguenot]

"Don't be a Wally" is more of a chastisement than an insult. I withdraw the apology if it's seen as an indictment.

SMG I simply used an analogy that legal beagle would be familiar with. If you'd like a people related analogy I can discuss the time at Yahoo when I withdrew revenue related targets from the client sales team because client sales is evangelical not 'sign here'.

It caused a riot in the client sales team, because they thought it undervalued their desire and they would all be fired. It didn't, I actually increased the headcount by 50%.

It caused a riot in the agency sales team because at that time their targets rightly went up, because they were reaping the remuneration rewards of the client sales team activity without having to lift a finger.

It wasn't broke, but the improvement delivered 60% growth in revenue within 3 months. Everyone got richer, because I also pushed through an agreement that a larger percentage of the bonus went on team rather than individual revenue.

Win:win, but nobody wanted the change at the time. Perils of management eh?