Fire cuts

[spc]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> It's nothing to do with the shift systems.

>

> You explicitly said that sickness and lateness had

> dropped for the stations that DIDN'T change to the

> new system.

>

> So nothing has changed except they're suddenly not

> sick and actually turn up to work.

>

> How do you account for that? Remember - you can't

> mention the new shift systems in your answer

> because these guys have not been subject to it.

In theory they are working the new shift, but with changes, which takes a lot of effort. Once again unless you understand how it works you won?t understand why they no longer go sick or are late.

>

> Regarding the FBU, all unions have an explicit

> responsibility to improve the salaries, terms,

> working conditions and perks of their employees.

> That's how they get members.

Not sure what the problem is there, again are you save you don?t want improvements to your conditions etc?

But that is not all they do, they have a social conscience they try to improve things for everyone, education for their members (which is a benefit to the employer too), they put forward ideas of how to improve the service we provide, many that have been take up by the employer, although normally after many years of campaigning, they fight to changes in legislation to keep the public and their members safe, they fight for improvement in standard operating procedures and health and safety. About 20 years ago the FBU produced a document on how to improve fire fighting and the government ignored it, 10 years later at great cost the government did it?s own investigation and came to the same conclusion, their document was almost the same word for word as the FBU?s, they have links with Ffs around the world learning from some and educating and providing free equipment and training to others.

>

> It doesn't take a genius to see that increasing

> salaries, holidays and perks for firefighters can

> be in direct conflict with trying to create a more

> efficient, better structured and more appropriate

> fire service.

Fire fighting over the years has always got move complicated, new equipment, new procedures, the work load has increased year on year (even before the shift change), we have taken on many more jobs, but the work force has got smaller, are you saying that people shouldn?t be paid for what they do?

By the way, no increase in wages for 3 years, holidays cut, overtime pay cut, perks cut or removed (not that I would call many of them perks really).

>

> That's why they only give one side of the story.

I would say they give the other side of the story to the employers and government. You seem to believe everything they say and nothing the union says.

One example, the employers are saying calls are down by a third, so it?s ok to cut back on Ffs, only half the story. Calls only take up 10% of our time. work loads are up, community safety work up approx 5% year on year for the last 5 years, fire prevention work up year on year, new dimensions, line rescue, water rescue, life project, junior fire setters, CBRN, the list goes on, didn?t even exist a few years ago, I would say a 15-20% increase in what we do for 90% of the time, why didn?t the employers mention that, cause it doesn?t fit with their agenda.

[Huguenot]

Everybody's business changes, everyone is suffering cuts and everyone is suffering pay freezes and job losses.

I don't see why the fire service should be any different.

If the nature of the job is changing, away from firefighting and toward education and fire prevention then the business should be structured accordingly.

If you've managed to do 20% more with your time, then what on earth were you doing before?

By the way, you won't win any arguments by telling people they're too stupid to understand. If shifts haven't changed and absenteeism is dropping then it simply tells us that something else is going on - you're not going to build any sympathy by implicitly suggesting that firefighters who don't like the new shifts are skiving.

[Marmora Man]

spc said "In theory they are working the new shift, but with changes, which takes a lot of effort. Once again unless you understand how it works you won?t understand why they no longer go sick or are late."

Why can't I understand the shift pattern? Explain it to me.

I've worked shifts myself, I've managed people working shifts, my son works shifts with the West Mids Ambulance Service, I'm reasonably intelligent. I cannot believe the Fire Service has come up with a system so Byzantine that EDF readers are unable to fathom it out.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think part of the problem is that that the job of a fireman used to have a lot of down time, so much so that some firefighters could hold down second jobs knowing they could catch up on sleep at the fire station. Many of the changes to the roles of Fire Fighters have been in part to put that down time to good use. Training and fire prevention schemes are all good uses for that time. And whether true or not, I think it sometimes feels as though Fire Unions protesteth too much at the idea that a full time job should actually be a full time job.

Most people in full time work, and especially in the public service sector, are having to cope with increased works loads and pay freezes. I don't know if the Fire Service is currently under a pay freeze, but if not,that might be a good option.

As for shift work.....if changes increase efficiency and save money, then change is right. The Fire Service is not in a bubble. It must change as other things change.

[Chippy Minton]

"I don't know if the Fire Service is currently under a pay freeze, but if not,that might be a good option." - ???

3 posts up, firefighter spc states: "no increase in wages for 3 years"

[DJKillaQueen]

Ah thanks.......so no option for further savings there.

[herrick]

hello alll

i am a firefighter that is based at the station responsible for covering East Dulwich - attendance time wise you have the short straw -always have , mostly due to road layout from peckham (assuming we are operational and not taken off the run to put up smoke alarms etc etc )- fires in your area are low mostly due to the socio economic spread , however you pay your taxes and should expect a "rescue " response , from your childs fingers trapped in his bike chain to a deliberate release of a chemical bomb ( fill in the middle whatever your imagination desires :) )- taking the above , would it not be right and proper to defend your rescue service ? can you justify not - its your fire service not mine , doubt ill lose my job so if they lose a machine or shut peckham then ill just get transfered .as a verteran of this job, i suggest at the least you stay informed and better still critically question any decision that could effect your safety - any questions then pop into any local station,be advised firefighters are fearful of being discciplined on speaking out so tread carefully and be tactful please - regards H

[Marmora Man]

herrick,

There's a balance to be struck between cost of public services and the cover the public requires of its services. You seem to suggest that because we pay our taxes we must have a 5* service. I'd happily settle for a more cost effective service based on a decent risk assessment.

You say:

1. Fires in your area are low mostly due to the socio economic spread.

Good - therefore the risk is low and the area doesn't need 24/7 immediate response vehicle(s). The risk can be lowered still further by appropriate training and education, something the new shift patterns are meant to make easier to deliver.

2. You pay your taxes and should expect a "rescue " response, from your childs fingers trapped in his bike chain to a deliberate release of a chemical bomb.

Not good - trapped fingers are not what I pay highly trained firefighters to be on standby for.

3. Deliberate release of a chemical bomb:

While the impact of such an event is very high, the probability is very low, so the risk is correspondingly low also. So, again, I don't need a highly trained team immediately around the corner "just in case".

4. Pop into any local station to ask questions but be advised firefighters are fearful of being discciplined on speaking out.

This is not good - if your management is so awful that you are truly afeared of them your much celebrated union is not doing its job. I suspect what it is doing is painting the Fire Brigade management (the majority of whom appear to be, as in the police, "from the ranks") as some kind of bogey man monster to sustain a fiction that the union is defending its members and the public. If however, I'm wrong - then what is the Union and its members doing about this? In Britain today the kind of management practices you imply are rare if not quite non existent.

[Chippy Minton]

"Therefore the risk is low and the area doesn't need 24/7 immediate response vehicle(s)"

Seriously, MM? Come on! There are people on this forum who are outraged that the Council don't run a 24/7 noise enforcement squad (or whatever they're called) or the dog turd patrol has been cutback. Just think of the reaction when the excuse for the fire service not stopping your house burning down (or worse) is that it happened at the wrong time of day!

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL Chippy.....good point.

Herrick by your analysis we should throw money at all the emergency services 'just in case'. This is just not realistic. There isn't a bottomless pit of tax payers money available and the fire service like any other public service has a duty to be cost effective and efficient. If the number of call outs has dropped (which it has over the past ten years) then being efficient means reflecting that. It's not a good argument to say we shouldn't change anything because x might happen or y might happen. That would be like saying there should be a police officer on every street corner because serious crime 'might' happen.

I think the public do in general support public services, but just not at any cost.

[Jessie]

Good grief I would find it very very worrying if emergency services were reduced because they may or may not be needed - no one can predict emergencies!! Isn't 'just in case' the very point of the 999 services? I'm sure the hotel I was staying in which burnt down wasn't expected to burn down but if the fire service hasn't responded so quickly I probably wouldn't be able to write this no doubt overly emotive response.

[Marmora Man]

Jessie said "no one can predict emergencies!!"

But you can make a very good assessment of the likelihood of an emergency and can do a lot to prevent an emergency happening by sensible precautions.

For example - ambulances used to standby in either their base station or a hospital. Statistically these were places where there were very few events requiring the ambulance service. The West Mids Ambulance Service, back in the 1990s, pioneered the statistical analysis of where accidents / events occurred requiring a Paramedic response. Result - ambulances based at motorway junctions and other "hotspots". This had a threefold positive effect:

1. Response times reduced.

2. More lives were saved because of 1. above

3. Assets were used more effectively and costs were reduced.

For the Fire Brigade the good work carried out to educate the public and business in sensible fire prevention actions has reduced the number of emergency call outs dramatically over the last 10 years. This means less fire engines and less staff are now required to provide the same level of emergency cover that pertained in the 1990s. More eduation yet might also mean that the public doesn't immediately dial 999 for the fire brigade to rescue cats, get children's fingers out of bike chains or heads out of saucepans - further reducing the demand.

Such actions will mean that when a real emergency occurs the Fire Brigade is still there and properly trained with the right experience to help you.

[DJKillaQueen]

I second all of that MM. Nowhere have I suggested normal emergency cover should be compromised Jessie. My point was in response to a suggestion that nothing should change in case we had a 'chemical bomb' attack for example. Throwing in unlikely scenarios to justify changing nothing isn't a good argument for me. As MM eloquently desribes......changes to the LFS over the past decade have had some positive results, in all respects. Change isn't always bad.

[herrick]

Guys and girls

not sure if we are all just too busy but it helps to read and digest rather than scan - i do not think we should throw money at the fire service , my point is why not defend your local services ? just to re enforce the point -that please dont drip to me if you suffer a tragedy and are the very people "see above posts" that are happy with the cuts , however those that defend your rescue services i wish you the best ,and MM some people may not all be armchair rescue technical experts like you and if a child has her fingers trapped in her bike and the police and ambulance service feel they need the fire service to assist then write into your MP and tell them its a waste of resources - but i bet you dont :) - regards all and take care

[spc]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> I think part of the problem is that that the job

> of a fireman used to have a lot of down time, so

> much so that some firefighters could hold down

> second jobs knowing they could catch up on sleep

> at the fire station. Many of the changes to the

> roles of Fire Fighters have been in part to put

> that down time to good use. Training and fire

> prevention schemes are all good uses for that

> time. And whether true or not, I think it

> sometimes feels as though Fire Unions protesteth

> too much at the idea that a full time job should

> actually be a full time job.

>

> Most people in full time work, and especially in

> the public service sector, are having to cope with

> increased works loads and pay freezes. I don't

> know if the Fire Service is currently under a pay

> freeze, but if not,that might be a good option.

>

> As for shift work.....if changes increase

> efficiency and save money, then change is right.

> The Fire Service is not in a bubble. It must

> change as other things change.

Just shows how much you really know about what the fire service does, we have never had a great deal of down time during productive times of the day, how do you know that Ffs have second jobs? maybe it's from the leaked document management gave to The Sun newspaper last year, according to the LFB I do a second job, which is not true, as a Ff I have to register with them if I wish to part time, which includes let say, cleaning out my sister's gutters cause according to the LFB that's a second job.

The shift change has done nothing to increase efficiency, in fact there is probably more wasted time during the day than there was before the change.

[spc]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> I second all of that MM. Nowhere have I suggested

> normal emergency cover should be compromised

> Jessie. My point was in response to a suggestion

> that nothing should change in case we had a

> 'chemical bomb' attack for example. Throwing in

> unlikely scenarios to justify changing nothing

> isn't a good argument for me. As MM eloquently

> desribes......changes to the LFS over the past

> decade have had some positive results, in all

> respects. Change isn't always bad.

Where are you getting your information from? What changes? What positive results, in all respects?

No one has said all changes are bad, I have actually said there is room for change in the LFB which would save millions, but the changes that they will come up with will probably not save us the taxpayers a penny and may (I said may) cost members of the public and Ffs their lives

[spc]

MM said: Not good - trapped fingers are not what I pay highly trained firefighters to be on standby for.

Tell me if your child gets their fingers trapped in a bike chain, a plug hole (which I have had) a washer etc what do you think should happen to them? leave them there until the finger falls off? cut the finger off? Or call the fire brigade who have the equipment, the training and the skills to free them in time to prevent permenant damage.

[Marmora Man]

spc Wrote:

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

> MM said: Not good - trapped fingers are not what I

> pay highly trained firefighters to be on standby

> for.

>

> Tell me if your child gets their fingers trapped

> in a bike chain, a plug hole (which I have had) a

> washer etc what do you think should happen to

> them? leave them there until the finger falls off?

> cut the finger off? Or call the fire brigade who

> have the equipment, the training and the skills to

> free them in time to prevent permenant damage.

If the problem is a serious as you suggest then a paramedic is far better qualified and experienced to attend the emergency, not a firefighter. However,

[DJKillaQueen]

Spc it is well known and admitted by some fire fighters themselves that they have had second jobs. Granted it's not all but still let's not pretend that some night shift fire fighters have had an easy ride in the past.

The LFS themsleves publish detailed annual accounts as referenced in my posts above, along with detailed data on call out's and types of work undertaken. So to answer you question....I get all my info from the fire service themselves, including their own admission that they came in 5% under budget last year.

I don't know if the LFS can absorb the second 8% cut in funding, but all the evidence is that it can certainly absorb the first 6% cut. You might not like it spc but quite frankly I'm tired of arguments that try to alarm the public with tales of death and serious injury being the outcome of any change. As we've seen with recent changes (to shifts etc) the rate of incidents and the outcome of those incidents have not been adversely affected.

I am also equally tired of public service sector workers accusing anyone that supports changes in efficiency and cost etc as not being supportive of those services (when we all pay into their generous pension schemes). Some Firefighters seem to have a hero complex imo. Nurses, paramedics and Police all have to deal with life threatening situations on a daily basis (hourly in some cases), and all have seen cuts to their services. They don't seem to need to remind us constantly of the paitents they treat or the people they help like some firefighters do.

[spc]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> spc Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > MM said: Not good - trapped fingers are not what

> I

> > pay highly trained firefighters to be on

> standby

> > for.

> >

> > Tell me if your child gets their fingers

> trapped

> > in a bike chain, a plug hole (which I have had)

> a

> > washer etc what do you think should happen to

> > them? leave them there until the finger falls

> off?

> > cut the finger off? Or call the fire brigade

> who

> > have the equipment, the training and the skills

> to

> > free them in time to prevent permenant damage.

>

> If the problem is a serious as you suggest then a

> paramedic is far better qualified and experienced

> to attend the emergency, not a firefighter.

> However,

So what equipment do paramedics carry to remove rings from fingers, fingers from chains, fingers from plug holes etc? answer they don't. They maybe experienced in many things (including treat people who have been trapped), but not removing body parts that are trapped, because they don't do it, the fire brigade do. We even attend hospital to assist there too.

[spc]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Spc it is well known and admitted by some fire

> fighters themselves that they have had second

> jobs. Granted it's not all but still let's not

> pretend that some night shift fire fighters have

> had an easy ride in the past.

>

> The LFS themsleves publish detailed annual

> accounts as referenced in my posts above, along

> with detailed data on call out's and types of work

> undertaken. So to answer you question....I get all

> my info from the fire service themselves,

> including their own admission that they came in 5%

> under budget last year.

>

> I don't know if the LFS can absorb the second 8%

> cut in funding, but all the evidence is that it

> can certainly absorb the first 6% cut. You might

> not like it spc but quite frankly I'm tired of

> arguments that try to alarm the public with tales

> of death and serious injury being the outcome of

> any change. As we've seen with recent changes (to

> shifts etc) the rate of incidents and the outcome

> of those incidents have not been adversely

> affected.

>

> I am also equally tired of public service sector

> workers accusing anyone that supports changes in

> efficiency and cost etc as not being supportive of

> those services (when we all pay into their

> generous pension schemes). Some Firefighters seem

> to have a hero complex imo. Nurses, paramedics and

> Police all have to deal with life threatening

> situations on a daily basis (hourly in some

> cases), and all have seen cuts to their services.

> They don't seem to need to remind us constantly of

> the paitents they treat or the people they help

> like some firefighters do.

You clearly have not listened to what I have been saying, so I will try one more time.

I am NOT against reducing costs.

I'm all FOR increased efficiency.

The new shifts have done nothing to help either of the above.

Call outs only take up 10% of our time, so a 30% drop in calls is only a 3% drop in workload.

Our work load has increased by 15-20% over the last 10 years, not reduced, who do you think is doing this extra work? answer Ffs.

The outcome of incidents HAVE been affected by the changes.

We take longer to arrive.

The fire is more developed by the time we get there, more damage is caused, insurance claims are inceasing. Who do you think pay for this?

There are more injuries to Ffs.

Cutting the service we provide you will NOT save you money in the long run, better management will. I believe it is possible to provide a better service than we do already, but cost you less, don't you want that?

I have not tried to alarm anyone.

Have you heard the saying "lies, damn lies and statistics", the reports you are talking about are written for politians and senior managers to justify their positions and the large bonuses managers receive for meeting targets.

I have given you examples of the half truths the brigade have given you to justify their position, if their accounts were so good you would know our workload had increased not reduced.

You don't have to believe me, you can carry on with your preconceived ideas of what Ffs do and the service they provide you, what would I know, I've only been doing the job for 26 years.

I have a job, I will still have a job at the end of this and yes hopefully I will get my pension which I pay 11.7% of my wages into (soon to be 14.8%) and I'm a taxpayer.

SAVE MONEY YES

EFFICIENCY YES

CUTS NO

If you can have the first two why would you want the third if you didn't have too!!!

[Huguenot]

Eh? Bizarre. If you can save money and be more efficient, then surely the service costs less - that's exactly the point. It's not a 'cut', it's appropriate funding.

You even say yourself that you believe in a better fire service that costs us less! That's a cut!

The insurance claims thing is a red herring. You would expect insurance claims to go up every year - that's economic reality along with the price of bread or your age.

Interested in this firefighter injury figure you keep repeating - can we see the stats?

The fire service is great, and it needs to be fit for the social realities of the 21st century. That means appropriate responsibilities and an allocation of resources in line with risk analysis.

We would all like a hospital, a police station and a fire station at the end of every road to cope with every eventuality. In reality we can't afford it. We need to make a series of compromises about what we can afford and where.

That's all this assessment of the fire service is.

So please stop with these alarmist scenarios. If little Freddie has his fingers down the drain he may have to wait a few more minutes, and if Auntie Jemima's cat is up a tree it'll have to stay there.

[DJKillaQueen]

I echo H's points.

Spc, show us the evidence that shift changes have not improved efficiency or reduced costs - on this point the LFS's own accounts show the savings made by shift changes, so there's a clue to why I dispute your claim on this point.

Call outs and emergency work as you freely admit are only 10% of your workload. And this is something that has reduced over the past ten years (by as much as 30% in some regions). So it's only common sense that the work load shifts to other secondary things such as prevention and education.

On insurance claims and attendance times...again, show me some data to support your claims. A red herring as H says (not supported by evidence).

Also injuries and deaths to both fire fighters and the public are dropping year on year. This amazingly in spite of changes to the fire service, which your union told us would lead to increased danger to the public and fire fighters. See why we need more than just unsubstantiated claims?

There are plenty of stats online regarding all aspects of the emergency services and work they do, collated by reputable sources. Sources that you can not dismiss as the work of politicians and biased service managers.

And you may well pay 11% into your pension, but you also know that the government and your employer are topping up your pension substantially (adding between 11 and 21 % according to whether the scheme is pre/post 2006). And what the public might not know is that one pension scheme allows fire fighters to retire as early 50 (as long as they have 25 years service) or 60 for the post 2006 scheme. Do you ever stop and think about the millions of private sector workers unable to afford even a basic pension, who are paying (through their taxes) for your expensive and generous pension scheme, while they'll be lucky to see retirement before 70?

I tried to find some accurate data of the cost of the pension scheme versus service costs. Because the council tax we pay for the fire service in part is for the pension fund too. Establishing just what percentage is for the service and what percentage is for the pension fund is proving to be difficult.

[DJKillaQueen]

Still looking for London figures for council tax and public sector pensions but in the meantime have a look at this thread.....it kind of illustrates why we should care why so much of our money is being spent on public sector pensions.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_taxpensions

[spc]

I give up, some people just don't listen or want to believe the truth, I have been clear, saving money and cutting the service we provide are not the samething.

You all seem to believe you know what the fire brigade does and how it can be more cost effective and efficient by reading a report or two or from the media, but won't believe someone who has 26 years experience of the job from the inside.

Why do you want to cut the service when you can have the samething for less?

Good luck to you all