Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[DJKillaQueen]

To be fair though, the latest development is that 27 (I think) fire engines that were removed to cover the strike from fire stations have still not been returned to those stations and it seems now that there are plans to cut those fire engines from the London service after Coleman two days ago said he thinks London has too many fire engines.

I'd like to see more of how this might affect the fire service, jobs and cover before having a formed view but this does seem to be a step in a previously undisclosed direction (if only it is Coleman's view, rather than any drawn up plans). There's no mention of cutting engines in the aspects (of contract) that were at the heart of the recent dispute (as cited by Coleman and the LFB).

Whilst I continue to think the proposed shift changes make sense, I might take a different view on plans to cut engines and jobs if pursuaded that would have a negative impact on London's fire cover.

[Kbabe01]

Sarcasm really is the lowest for of wit :-S

Fact is the Ffs said this was about cuts. Nobody believed them and now surprise surprise 16% cuts! In less than a week!!! So in all honesty I think the Ffs have won this argument as they have been proved right!! It was never about shift changes! It was always about cuts!

[DJKillaQueen]

Hang on....the dispute was about rule 188 which came about because of failure to agree on shift changes. There were no disclosures of planned cuts at that stage.

Now there was never going to be any suprise about cuts given the governments recent spending review which demands financial cuts (of up to 20% in the first year) to ALL public services. The question is how is that achieved. LFB haven't as yet published any intent to cut fire engines or jobs. But Coleman's view can be taken as a statement that is likely to happen. The only question is whether London really does have too many fire engines (his view). I would rather see some data instead of being 'told you so'.

Neither the FFs or the LFB have won the argument yet. The case now has to be made for the inevitible decision on what is to be cut.

The Union and FFs are always going to say any cut is bad.

Coleman and the LFB are going to say the opposite.

The truth as always will probably be somewhere in between.

I'd ask this question of ffs, given that cuts will have to happen, where do they think the savings can be made (shift changes were supposed to deliver greater efficiency - does anyone know what that would have saved in itself budget wise, if anything)? That surely would be the counter argument to cutting fire engines and jobs. As yet I can't seem to find any union view on that but that is something that will have to be figured out if the FFU is going to stop (and I think it can) the loss of 27 fire engines.

Digging in, and fighting a battle of attrition, is only going deliver one winner....and that is management I'm afraid.

[Huguenot]

The shift wasn't about budget cuts per se, as far as I can tell, but about productivity uplift.

kbabe01 :"and now surprise surprise 16% cuts! In less than a week"

No. There hasn't been any budget cuts. WTF is it with you? Are you so desperate to win an argument that you'll make stuff up?

What there is, is an ebullient olde skool slighty thick director who wants revenge on the people who rubbed his nose in the dirt. Because he can't actually do anything, he's stuck with making snidey comments.

Because the ffs called off the strike, he has been forced to give them their ball back, so he's doing it begrudgingly.

What's new here? Water. Duck's back.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Ah, the very man I'd want in charge, and would trust in any negotiation

[laincoubert]

Agreed. Fitting a few extra smoke alarms in the day instead of night never justified this scale of dispute and has been a smokescreen all along. Coleman has orchestrated the entire performance so far which is why the commissioner has now become rather silent. Remember both Coleman and chief gave 100% cast iron guarantees via national media that there would be no cuts to jobs or fire cover. The ffs were not believed when they claimed Coleman was lying and many people surprised me by accepting the politicians word in this matter despite the managements stated aims being so flaky!!!

The effects of a 16% cut are not something I could speculate on yet. I am certain at least that the breakdown in trust between management and workers which was serious enough to result in strike action twice and which nearly included bonfire night is mainly the fault of the bosses. They appear to treat their workers in a contemptible way, have been dishonest to both staff and the public and I have been saddened to see this. I will never understand why they couldn't have been open from the start and worked with the union to find savings and explore the potential for cuts without stoking up this pointless and damaging dispute on what seems to be false grounds. I expect more from the leaders of an essential emergency service.

[DJKillaQueen]

Kbabe gets the 16% from the 27 fire engines that haven't as yet been returned to fire stations. 27 fire engines are 16% of London's total cover. Kbabe makes the assumption that those engines will not be returning to fire stations. It is an assumption, not fact at this stage.

However Coleman did yesterday in a last minute amendment to a Fire Authority budget committee, 'suggest'

officers explore, as part of the budget process, and report back to the Committee? on whether the Brigade needs all 27 of the fire appliances removed from stations during the current industrial action to be returned or whether there is an over-supply of appliances

This to me seems to be at best, an opportunist attempt cut the number of fire engines (in light of coming budget cuts), at worst a cynical move designed to inflame ffs and punish them for striking, but it's an opportunity that wouldn't have presented itself had the ffs not gone on strike, therefore requiring the removal of engines in the first place.

My view is that the engines should return to their stations and any cuts, and discussion of them can come afterwards.

[legalbeagle]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> Ah, the very man I'd want in charge, and would

> trust in any negotiation

Well to be fair Sean, Huguenot did say in his earlier post that he recommended childish name calling, so he's nothing if not consistent?

;-)

[Moflo]

H I haven't lost any argument, I am attacking Mr Coleman because he is attacking the firefighters by removing 27 appliances it is in fact a 16% reduction in fire cover. SO if these appliances are removed permanently then 500+ ff's that crew these appliances will lose their jobs which is roughly 10.3% of the workforce. You may ask whether we need these appliances back? I for one really do not want to find out. This reduction will increase the call out time drastically.

The strikes were about section 188 but the dispute on the shifts changes were because the ff's new that these were all about cuts in fire cover.

[Huguenot]

Moflo, this is all in your head. Made up stuff.

There is no removal of 27 appliances, there are no 500 ffs losing their jobs. There is no reduction of 10.3% of the workforce. There is no drastic reduction of call out time. Ther's just one throwaway comment.

More than that, it isn't all about Coleman.

It doesn't surprise me that people want to make it all about Coleman, he's a soft target. It's bloody childish stuff though, and reveals that there is no intent on behalf of the ffs to engage in intelligent debate. It's just hairpulling and namecalling.

PS. Just to really hammer the point home, follow this argument: these 27 appliances have been gone for how long? What was the reduction in call out time in that period? In fact, was there any reduction at all? 50 quid says there was bugger all, but we'd never have found this out if the idiots hadn't gone out on strike, would we? So the ffs have shot themselves firmly in the foot, and are now so stupid they're publicising it.

[DJKillaQueen]

The engines haven't been cut. Read my previous post moflo...it's pretty rational. Coleman had posed the question, and I would agree that is not the way to do things.

I still would like a ffs view on if savings have to be made, where can they be made? Cuts were part of the spending review. The question is can they be made without cutting fire cover and jobs?

Coleman seems to now want to argue that London doesn't need all of the fire engines it has. He might be right but I would like to see him qualify that view with data.

Similarly the ffs are going to say they need every fire engine they currently have. They might be right but I would like them to qualify that with data also.

I don't accept that the FFU used a disagreement on shift changes to actually protest about cuts. Cuts would always be opposed by any union as details emerge. There are no details of cuts at present because there are no proposals, only a view held by Coleman that he has suggested be looked at.

[laincoubert]

It is an opportunity which wouldn't have presented itself had ffs not gone on strike, yes djka that is apparent now. Coleman for all his faults isn't stupid. In a much earlier post I suggested he actually wanted the strikes, he was spoiling for this fight and manipulting the situation to suit his agenda. I would say given his smug gratitude to the fbu for allowing him to remove the 27 machines in the first place then I am convinced this was his strategy all along. The ffs had little choice but to react to his provocation but at same time were playing into his hands. Quite a guy!

[DJKillaQueen]

You might be right Iain. And of course there are very good reasons why some 'surplus' cover exists, because on the rare occasions that there are major incidents, like the fire at Kings Cross, or 7/11, those engines and ffs are needed. My view is an open one on potential cuts to engines and their impact.

[brum]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

>

>

> It's just hairpulling and

> namecalling.....

>

> .....but we'd never have found this out if the

> idiots hadn't gone out on strike, would we? So the

> ffs have shot themselves firmly in the foot, and

> are now so stupid they're publicising it.

True to form, Huguenot himself resorts to name-calling when he knows he's losing an argument, but can't admit it!

[Huguenot]

And as usual those supporting the ffs have no argument but to whinge about how hard done by they are.

Come on brum, let's have a proper argument for once? Let's have some information, some evidence, some rational debate?

Go on mate, you know you can do it.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think the silence on where cuts could be made (or money saved) if required, is deafening.

[SeanMacGabhann]

and your conclusion from that is?

[DJKillaQueen]

That the FFs have no grasp of the reality of the consequences of the government's spending review.....

If there is going to be a settlement of any dispute there will have to be some measure of compromise on both sides.

[brum]

Huguenot - The case has been made for the dispute and you have opted to reject it. That's your prerogative but I don't feel it's worth the effort repeating the case for you. So we will just have to disagree on that one.

DJKQ - you are mistaken to think that firefighters have no grasp on the scope of the cuts ahead. We are all citizens just like you and indeed sometimes we read informed newspapers and listen to Radio 4! If you are content to allow your fire service to be cut, leading to reduced fire cover, then that is your prerogative (my word of the day, by the way) however others hold a different view. This does not make them ignorant, which is what you are suggesting.

[DJKillaQueen]

I have made valid points and asked polite questions, which seem to never be answered. I ask again where do you think cuts or savings CAN be made. The repeated vague rhetoric of 'any cut is bad' is tedious. And it's not about contentment, it's about making sure that tax payers money isn't wasted where it's not needed...I'm asking you for data that shows the fire service can NOT bear any cut (to engines or whatever). I would ask the same of LFB that it CAN be cut (because I genuinely do not know if we have too many fire engines compared to need). But I am no more likely to take your word for it than managements without some hard evidence.

You are providing NO evidence of anything....just getting shirty with anyone that doesn't fully support your view, which is based on vague claims I'm afraid. I understand why ffs feel so strongly...it's their jobs possibly on the line...but we have to be realistic. Cuts have to be made everywhere. It's for ffs to demonstrate that savings can be made without the loss of engines or jobs, or that indeed London needs every engine and ff it has, as much as it is up to LFB to prove the opposite. Then I can make an informed view.

[Huguenot]

Forgive me Brum, I haven't seen any case made for the dispute.

Allowing for my own idiocy, can you just bang it out in 3 to 10 bullet points for me? Honestly mate, I'm not a complete tit, maybe a partial one, but I just haven't been able to nail it.

[brum]

Shirty eh.....!

I am simply presenting an alternative view to yours.

You ask for facts but sorry there aren't any, just a wish to maintain London's provision of a first class fire and rescue service. Of course you can get a smaller service for much lower cost, but will it be as good? I honestly don't think so. But for me to prove it, sorry but I can't. My views are based on working in the fire service for 29 years and that's it. You don't have to agree, and I'm not fussed if you don't, but that's it anyway!

And the same goes for bullet points too, Huguenot. I don't have a single one. Sorry.

[DJKillaQueen]

Of course you can get a smaller service for much lower cost, but will it be as good?

That's the key question in any dispute about cuts. And without an answer, whilst I can certainly support the sentiment to oppose them, it's hard to know who is right. The union should be able to provide an overview that analyses the number of call outs to engines etc. Managament will certainly be able to do that and would use it as the basis of any proposal for cuts.

As a member of the public, of course I want a good service, but I also want it to be good value for the money spent on it too.

On the shift change aspect, I'm afraid H is right. There has been no effective counter argument made to the

mamnagement proposals, and nor has any good answer been given as to why the compromise of 11/13 was rejected, apart from 'because of the conditions attached' - and no attached conditions listed for us to consider.

[brum]

If only it was as simple as that. Producing evidence to substantiate a prediction, I mean. And presenting statistics as evidence cannot always be trusted - they are often used as a tool to hoodwink the masses, as politicians often successfully do.

Putting it another way, the weight of attack at an incident affects the outcome. Timing is also crucial in a rescue scenario - the sooner we get there the better (It really could be the difference between life or death). If either of these factors are adversely affected by a reduction in fire cover, then it will show up in the fire statistics eventually, by which time, of course, it will be too late.

The shift change proposals in themselves will make little, if no difference to the speed and weight of response. The issue is that the changes are seen as a precursor to a future reduction in overnight fire cover. Management deny this. Hence the dispute. Who is right remains to be seen, though apparently it is already happening in the West Midlands, which has come 4 years after similar shift pattern changes were forced through.

[Pilgrim]

DJKQ I'm not sure but believe the conditions where about the standbys! At the moment ff's go from home station to where ever they are being sent, after the shift they go back to home station and leave kit etc there and go home! New proposals ate that they go and go home from standby without going to home station, that means they have to take their kit home then onto standby then home then back to home station on their next shift. If you have seen the kit they have to use you would see this is not practical nor safe. As this is happening more and more because of the reduction in cover then in effect you will have ff's travelling round without a home station. That is one of the fears at the moment. If I am wrong then I am sure someone will tell me.