Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[Pearson]

I think some people are getting a bit over emotional and not reading the posts correctly.

I do not think there is anyone on here who is saying they do not respect firefighters

In fact if anything, i think it is the one thing we all agree on!

can we move on from this wrong assumption and discuss the real reasons for this impending action.

As so far, i still don't feel like there has been a good enough argument for such action...

To date, the only 'real' reason i am lead to believe is shift patterns.

Fire fighters... please, in a couple of bullet points or like one short paragraph/nutshell.

What to you, justifies this proposed action?

[Santerme]

I agree MM nicely put

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> Londonfireman, your statistic of 2.5 deaths a year

> in the Fire Service is clearly 2.5 too many.

> However, dangerous work cannot, of itself, justify

> uncritical support for what to me, despite four

> pages of comment and at least three requests from

> me, an unexplained and unnecessary strike. It

> could be about shift patterns, or maybe the right

> of management to manage or the right of unions to

> oppose management or something else entirely.

[Kbabe01]

Unless im mistaken LondonFireman outlined the reasons for the strike??? This is what i understand from what i have read and been told. Please correct me if i am wrong??

There are threats of sackings if they dont sign new contracts changing shifts to 12/12. This they believe will then allow the lfb to out scource the nightshift eventually and close stations etc. This will also they believe delay response time and therefore put people at risk. At the moment the shifts are 9/15. If they stop the night shif now and put ff on 4 days (insted of 2 days 2 nights) thats only 36 hours and not the 48 they should be working. Put them on 12/12 and then it will make no difference if they do 4 days as its still 48 hours. So they are free to cut back nighshifts and close stations at night.

[Pearson]

^ nope, sorry...

You've lost me again. I know, i'm being thick.

And don't give the threat of sacking because that a result of this stalemate.

I still don't get the shift change reason and don't understand the 'other' reasons.

But seriously in a nutshell what is the singular most important reason/justification for this action?

[laincoubert]

Is everyone missing my point. The management haven't given one single good reason TO SIGN the new contracts. Who in their right mind would sign a contract which didn't benefit anyone at all?

"sign here or your sacked. By the way the new contract will double the number of evenings you work and not benefit anyone at all, but we will say they do just to anger you all and cause division within public opinion"

You are being lied to by ruthless people who are comfortable deceiving us all and have only their own careers and legacy at heart. Therefore all the afforementioned points regarding the dire consequences apply. Hence FFs forced to make a stand. All be it probably in the wrong way, but their union has legally acquired enough support to fight the bosses by whatever means necessary. The bosses in return are equally fighting back with all their devious might.

Is it not plausible the leaders have this all wrong? I esuspect the leaders on both sides do

Presumably eventually the bosses will crush the ffs and their profession will not be the same again. We the paying public had better hope none of us suffer as avresult

[Fuschia]

A contract exists between the firefighters and the employers. In law, a contract cannot be changed without the agreement of both sides. The firefighters have not agreed to the change. Now the employers are using heavt handed tactics in moving to sack the employees to enforce the change.

Now inagine yourself.... you have a contract, say, with your mortgage conpany, the company tries to force a major change to which you do not agree (change your tracker rate, say, or amend your right to repay early) when you state you wish to continue with the contract you signed up to, they state they will terminate your account. Would you be happy?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Reading teh posts on here, I'm not sure why the onus is on the firefighters to justify their actions BEFORE managements. Both may be being intransigent and unhelpful but before we condemn those about to strike, are we really so sure the reasons for the proposed changes are sound?

When it comes to bin collections and postal deliveries, most people seem to be upset with the massive reductions in those services going back decades - the unions all warned about exactly the impact. Would it not be better to support the firefighters at first and have management explain themselves? And if they sound reasonable THEN the onus is back on the firefighters?

But I've heard nothing but vague management-jargon for the changes. Maybe they are 100% necessary but I can't see why yet

[Huguenot]

The mistake that you're making Fuschia is that it isn't a mortgage company, it's the public purse.

The UK people refuse to pay any more tax - in fact they vote for the parties that offer tax cuts. The public have also run up a huge debt by borrowing against their children's future.

UK Plc. is quite literally on the point of insolvency, the question in our public services is whether we reorganise them to increase efficiency, and make cuts where possible, or whether we quite simply go bust - and then damage all our public services possibly irretrievably.

In any case, your view on contracts isn't accurate. Contracts are rarely completely binding, and will have a number of clauses that will result in early termination.

The FFs have to bear these straightened circumstances as much as anyone. If that means admitting that some of the night time cover is a poorly used luxury in our current circumstances then we have to accept that as well.

In answer to SMG, the management seems clear - the new shift patterns are more healthy, create better firefighters, more streamlined, more cost efficient, and allow more flexible fire cover to meet the changed world we live in:

There is evidence that the current 9 hour split between night shifts is insufficient - it creates an impairment equivalent to being over the alcohol legal limit in the second shift.

That the extended night shift itself creates a negative health impact through repeated sleep deprivation.

Business hours have changed in the last 30 years - with many retail premises open 8am to 8 pm, consequently changing demand patterns.

They also made clear that changing shifts at rush hour wasn't the brightest thing in the world, as it creates a shift change at the highest points in demand on the service.

The new shift patterns also increase contact with a school age child from 11 to 13 hours per shift pattern - an increase in family friendliness not a decrease.

In fact, it's all in the attached document in a fantastic and clearly constructed study into the issues involved.

[SeanMacGabhann]

All sounds reasonable to me H - so either

a) there is more to it than that or

b) the fighters really are extremely silly - to the point that stretches credulity

[Santerme]

Hope we have same level of outrage later today

7000 soldiers out of the army will definitely ensure sleep patterns are disrupted and for shifts read tours extended

Its all relative I guess

[Huguenot]

Well maybe between the lines the firefighters are worried that more sensible shift patterns may result in centralisation of night services, and a demand for fewer firefighters. That's something Unions hate more than anything as it raises the likelihood of redundancies.

The problem is that it's exactly why I have an antipathy to unions - because they'd prefer to stay inefficient and demanding more cash.

Even if this is the case (because there's been absolutely no evidence presented yet)I don't actually agree that this is 'reduced fire cover' because it's rare at night that fire demands exceed available firemen, and quieter roads mean greater distances can be covered in less time.

This 'prelude to privatisation' stuff seems nonsensical union rabble rousing, and this 'all getting sacked' is also a 'technicality' red herring, because really they're just getting new contracts. Nobody seems to actually have a view that the new contracts are bad, it's just that they don't like getting new ones.

[Kbabe01]

EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE

If my house is on fire in dulwich at 2am in the morning and me and my family are trapped, id rather not wait for a fire crew to drive from chelsea thanks. Not when theres a perfectly good station at peckham or forest hill. Thats what will happen tho.

[Huguenot]

I'm not sure you have any evidence for that assertion regarding chelsea - so it's just a scare tactic.

Besides, these things should be addressed at the appropriate time with the appropriate information.

In the final analysis we'd like a fire station at the end of every road, and a hospital and a police station, school etc. However, we just can't afford it, so we need to make some sensible decisions about what we're willing to pay for, and what we're not.

There's no clarity in this debate from the FFs, but there's splendid case studies from the Fire Brigade proving that changing shifts is good for all.

[Kbabe01]

Chelsea was an EXAMPLE.

[Pearson]

Kbabe01 Wrote:

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

> If my house is on fire in dulwich at 2am in the

> morning and me and my family are trapped, id

> rather not wait for a fire crew to drive from

> chelsea thanks. Not when theres a perfectly good

> station at peckham or forest hill. Thats what

> will happen tho.

______________________________________________

So it is FACT that they will close down Peckham and Forest Hill stations?

Can you show me where this list is that show all the proposed closures.

As regards having to wait for a crew from 'Chelsea' you seem to be forgetting about the 10 other fire stations that are closer And at 2 in the morning, lets face it traffic won't be an issue so i would estimate that the furthest station on my list would take 15min tops

Or are you saying they also propose to close these as well?

1. Old Kent Road

2. New Cross

3. Brixton

4. Battersea

5. Clapham

6. Deptford

7. East Greenwich

8. Greenwich

9. Lambeth

10. Lewisham

^ That's an awful lot of fire stations.

How many hospitals do we have by way of a comparison,

with reference to life saving in the middle of the night?

[brum]

It seems to me that some posters here are quite prepared to accept that a reduction in overnight fire cover is a necessary consequence of the public sector cuts. In London, you get a very speedy response to a call, normally within 5 minutes. People living in more rural areas aren't so lucky - it can take over 20 minutes.

If this is the case, that London residents are content with longer attendance times - then that's fine. But please bear in mind that in today's homes it can take only 5 to 8 minutes for a fire to develop from a single flame to a raging inferno.

Politicians are driving through this change agenda. That in itself should ring alarm bells. (excuse the pun!)

By the way, with all this talk of fires, its a good time to check your smoke alarms are working.

[Kbabe01]

Oh for GODS sake!! IT WAS AN EXAMPLE!!!

[Pearson]

Haha, well why didn't you just say Birmingham.

Would have made it far scarier waiting for them :)-D

[Huguenot]

I can understand your concerns brum, I just think we should be having that debate at the appropriate time with appropriate information.

Currently there is only a proposal to change shifts, and a demonstration of the benefits that delivers - there's no mention of privatisation, no talk of station closure, no talk of redundancies.

The new contracts seem to be a response to Union complete intransigence over this issue, that apparently they've been trying to address for 5 years? So that's not their fault either?

[Moflo]

Huguenot Wrote:

>

> This 'prelude to privatisation' stuff seems

> nonsensical union rabble rousing, and this 'all

> getting sacked' is also a 'technicality' red

> herring, because really they're just getting new

> contracts. Nobody seems to actually have a view

> that the new contracts are bad, it's just that

> they don't like getting new ones.

Stations have official notification that the LFB are invoking clause 188. After 90 days if they do not agree the changes to contract they will be sacked, That is the reason for the action, withdraw that clause and its back to negotiations! They know there will be changes but do not feel that pressure of being sacked helps the process.

[Huguenot]

Except that they can't sack everyone can they? It's not practical, so it's an empty gesture.

If the LFB have been trying to have sensible conversations with the Union for five years, then what on earth are they expected to do?

Is it possible the Union want a repeal of the clause 188 invocation with only one issue in mind - to go back to doing absolutely nothing to change a system that needs change?

What do the Union really want, because it doesn't seem to be anything to do with the shift change....?

[casper]

I must confess I find Huguenot's attachment very compelling. Can anyone from the pro firefighter viewpoint argue against this using facts rather than the arguement that we are all going to burn in our homes at night which this document suggests would not be the case?

What is wrong in trying to be more efficient and productive? Sometimes the old ways are not always the best.

To make the link between 12/12 shift patterns and closing fire stations and redundancies does not seem to stack up through any evidence.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I totally agree with this and, if pushed, am inclined towards the MM/Huguenot position ? from a logical perspective. And I?m not worried that the changes will lead t me burning in my bed so scare tactics don?t work on me eaither

And yet, and yet?.

As I pointed out earlier, can anyone say their postal service is better than it was even a decade ago. All the warning were similar at the time, as were the reassurances.

When two banks or big companies merge, the assurances are often put out that jobs won?t necessarily be lost etc etc ? and there is no evidence whatsoever not to believe each individual statement. But everybody knows that the merged operation will shed jobs

If the firefighters are supicious of management I say they have reason to be. No evidence. But reason to be

[louisiana]

To add a little perspective, shift patterns vary from country to country. A number of countries (e.g. Spain) have 24-hour shifts for firefighters, which has always struck me as a little bonkers.

[laincoubert]

The thing is Mr Hueguenot, despite the commendable objective logic you are applying, much of which I do nod in agreement with; your mains assertations are still based on trusting the management and their reasoning/figures etc.

One point would be that FFs currently change shift at 0900 and 1800. the busiest times of the day!!

Firstly busiest for who? The FF's I know, and I have spoken to several now, swear blind (i do not know whether statistics are availabale or could be trusted depending upon their source) that they are no more likely to pick up a call around these times than at any other time. Yes they acknowledge nights are generally quieter, while hot dry summer afternoons tend to lead to more fires and cold icy nights more car accidents. But the impression that I get is that there are no reliable patterns or trends which their emergency calls follow. The police may know that last orders on a firday night means civil disturbance in town centres, but the dodgy electrics which finally smoulder, the lift which just stops working, the old lady who collapses behind a door. There are no patterns for these events!

So again Im lead to be suspicious as to the management again, citing a reason which is arguably very flawed. But there is more....

Currently FFs begin duty at 0900. There is no break in service at 0900. The watch finishing and the watch starting cross over seemlessly so a 999 call at 0857, 0859, 0900, 0902 etc. is not reacted to any slower due to the crews swapping over.

However after one hour on duty, any crew member who is still on duty from the shift before due to staff shortages (this is a normal daily occurance) are now allowed to leave and go home if they so wish. So it is at 1000 when the staff shortages have an affect on the availability of machines. It is at 1000 (and 1900) when regularly, every day in fact dozens of crews become unavailable while waiting for spare FFs to be moved around the brigade to fill the vacant slots. one hour in to the new shift is when the disruption occurs!!!

So therefore in the mornings, during this alleged "busy time" which the Chief likes to refer to, their proposed new shifts (0800 start) will suffer the crew shortages at 0900 which is precisely when they claim to need full crewing due to demand!!

None of their reasons are at all persuasive to me. I stand by the arguement that the management are still failing t provide one single good reason to alter the contracts. This with the leaked document which the union has published suggests they are lying. If actual cuts are needed fine, be honest about it. But while they pretend this is not about cuts, how can they deserve anything other than scorn for their demands.

Final point, the union has presented many alternative shift arrangements to them, new start finish times under 9-15 plus several others. And yes these are ones which have been approved by and do suit the firefighters, but also can be argued will improve efficiency for them too. I know lots of bar staff work unsociable hours too, my son works in nandos and does awful hours. But the FF's I believe do not need to sacrifice any more of their evenings than they aready do to improve. The management have rejected every single one. of these negotiated offers.

Sadly the management and unions clearly hate each other, the battle seems rather personal betwen certain figures and the ffs stand to lose more than any otghers regardless.

One last point, I was able to track down details of the poor ff who suffered a broken back at work last week, but it wasnt easy. I admit I do love a good conspiracy, but really is it coincidence that this has been all but blocked from the news??? I would have always expected to see a story about an injured ff in the past, even if only very briefly. Im not suggesting that politicians are influencing the press but.............