Should We Send Our Firefighters To Iraq?

by Englishman 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Englishman

  Just wondering. Tomorrow is the day that the firemen strike again, having still not resolved a pay and productivity agreement. Once again, the army boys are manning the fire appliances, so's the firemen can strike without there being too much risk to the public.

  In view of the fact that the UK is sending one-quarter of it's armed forces in the direction of Iraq, can we assume therefore that the firemen will be returning the favour by manning the hundreds of tanks and guns that are also to be deployed out there?

  It seems a fair exchange, after all.

  Englishman.
• 

  expatbrit

  Someone should tell the fire fighters that for every vacancy in the fire service, there are forty applicants.

  Expatbrit
• 

  ISP

  I think Iraq will need as many firefighters as it can get!

  ISP
• 

  Valis

  Eman...do you know if a large number of your firefighters are in the reserve of do you even have that in the UK? That's what I first thought, because many US firefighters, Emergency Medical Technicians, bobbies, are in the US Millitary reserve and are being called up..

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer of the "Draft Dodgy" class
• 

  josephus

  to expatbrit

  my father is a firefighter.

  "for every place in the service their are forty applicants"

  by this logic then we shouldnt pay our polititians at all since they are massively outnumbered by potential applicants. Or why pay doctors ? since med schools around britian have massive compatition to get in leaving many out .

  Firemen risk their lives, contribute 10 percent of their wages to their pensions to help improve them, and then get accused of having too large pensions.

  the government paid a firm to decide on the level of pay they were entitled to. When the fire service paid THE SAME FIRM it was ridiculed.

  The fire service is given NO goverment funding to attend road accidents. they simply use their fire budget and dont moan. They have NO extra funding to deal with terrorist actions, despite the fact that they will be some of the first people dealing with them.

  Perhaps when you have helped the victims of the omagh bombings and countless other disasters survive, and cried yourself to sleep because people have died in your arms, you will be able to complain about their pay.

  josephus
• 

  expatbrit

  Yeah I figured that would get the predictable emotional reaction.

  by this logic then we shouldnt pay our polititians at all since they are massively outnumbered by potential applicants. Or why pay doctors ? since med schools around britian have massive compatition to get in leaving many out .

  Then your logic is faulty, since that is not the point at all. The point is that the new breed of union militants represented by leaders such as Andy Gilchrist are demanding exorbitant no-strings-attached pay increases of 40% while wanting to maintain the notorious restrictive practices the fire service cherishes. This is blatant extortion and a racket. If others are willing to work for less, then the current personnel are overpriced. Let the market decide the rate. If the demand for firemen/politicians/doctors exceeds the supply, their wages will go up. If the supply exceeds the demand (and it does) then their wages will fall.

  Even better, privatise the service. Allow private companies to provide a better service, such as training for medical procedures. Training that the existing fireservice have largely refused. France's service also provides ambulance and first aid service. The private company Falck in Denmark runs a large percentage of the fire service, plus the vehicle breakdown service and the ambulance service. Their workers are better trained, and because the service is more efficient, they earn more than British fireworkers.

  The British service is appallingly managed. Funding according to the number of call-outs is ridiculous, leading to scams like the West Midlands off-duty firemen who would call in hoaxes at the end of their shift to trigger extra pay for their colleagues. They get a hugely indulgent shift-system of working two days and two nights, then getting four days off, meaning a lot of them can run lucrative sideline businesses.

  Of course, they play the predictable emotional blackmail cards about risking their lives and so on. This is designed to distract from the fact that the fire service is one of the last bastions of union power with all its worst qualities of protectionism, over-staffing, bad service and inefficiency. No-one forces fire service workers to do the job, and the nature of the work does not provide an excuse for the blatantly extortionate tactics employed by the union.

  Expatbrit
• 

  josephus

  expatbrit
  yes firemen do call in fake fires to get more money. the people doing this are exclusively PARTIMERS since it makes no financial sense to do if you are paid as a full time afirefighter THEY ARE SALARIED!. remember the partime firemen are the ones so applauded by the current government.

  your idea of letting the market decide wages is certainly revolutionary! why not go the whole hog and revert to dickens days. Im certain we could find some orophan kids to do it on the cheap. Or why not privatise it, great! but why not just fund it properly and not try to make it look bad by not giving it the cash it needs.

  the shift system ensures the my dad does an average of 42 hours a week all year, and he has to works 27 weekends without overtime. so who gives a damm if he can fit a job around those crazy hours

  the 40 percent was obviously a negotiating position. the employers and the union agreed to much less but were vetoad by the government! Andy gilcrist isnt a nice guy, but if your dealing with our current parasites in office, id rather have the devil doing my deals.

  josephus
• 

  Simon

  I think anyone making a 40% claim in the current economic climate should have their sanity checked.

  The problem with the fire-service is that when the last strike ended, the agreement was to have the salary linked to the wages of other manual workers such as miners, steelworkers, shipbuilders etc... which at the time was high.

  Since then, times have changed and these industries have dissappeared and so to the fire-men's salaries have gone down.

  I personally think that both sides are telling porkies. The danger is not as great as it is made out (fighting fires it is a dangerous task but less so with the equipment and training). Also, they do not fight fires all the time.

  On the other hand, this "40 applicants per job" is totally irellevent. What matters is how many of those applicants are suitable for and could actually do the job.

  One thing that does puzzle me this this notion that if they modernise and bring in modern working practices (like ending the 25 year ban on overtime!) then they should get the money saved?

  So, our fire service will cost the same no matter what? hmmnn ... shouldn't the people paying for the service reap the benefits of doing things better and be able to say how things are done?