D/Ream Ban Labour From Using Their Song...
News2 mins ago
London Fire Brigade.....
....are scheduled to go on strike on Bonfire Night.
How cynical - and dangerous - is this?
How cynical - and dangerous - is this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And who settles policemen's pay and conditions then, when they are not allowed to strike? And do we see under-recruitment in the police service or officers leaving it?
If we have no problem with the police (or the army, come to that) then why would the fire service prove a problem if we had a similar system for that?
If we have no problem with the police (or the army, come to that) then why would the fire service prove a problem if we had a similar system for that?
No its not its about confrontation, there was no negotiation they wanted to impose it. They were then told either accept it or be sacked.
I understand why they are striking and you have to wonder at the management style that will do it. I think when 70% of your entire workforce votes for it there must be more to it than that.
I understand why they are striking and you have to wonder at the management style that will do it. I think when 70% of your entire workforce votes for it there must be more to it than that.
'No negotiation' is interesting. It's not unusual for shift patterns to be changeable without consultation. Such a provision is found in contracts of employment quite often and it has never been found to be contrary to law or unfair in itself, provided that total hours are not increased. Here it appears that the totality of hours worked is unchanged and, some would say improved, because there is a shorter night shift.
Mind, the saga doesn't say much for the style of management.
Is it true that firemen take day jobs for the hours when not on duty? That might explain several things, one of them being a reluctance to take longer day shifts.
Mind, the saga doesn't say much for the style of management.
Is it true that firemen take day jobs for the hours when not on duty? That might explain several things, one of them being a reluctance to take longer day shifts.
[Two Part Answer]
This dispute is not directly about money, jno. As Dave says, it is about shift patterns.
I used to employ firefighters who worked for me in their spare time. If my recollection is correct (and I’m sure somebody on AB will tell me if any of this has changed) they work an eight day pattern which consists of two days, two nights and four days off. The days are 9am-6m and the nights are 6pm-9am. However, during the night shifts they are not required to work unless they are called out. Beds are provided for their comfort at night.
This means that unless they are called out at night they work just eighteen hours every eight days – that is a working week of just under sixteen hours. Most of them have second jobs or run their own businesses. No other full time employees could do the alternatives work they do – they would not have the time.
This shift pattern, which is understandably jealously guarded, was devised when large numbers of fires occurred at night and this is no longer the case. Reform of the shift system is long overdue.
This dispute is not directly about money, jno. As Dave says, it is about shift patterns.
I used to employ firefighters who worked for me in their spare time. If my recollection is correct (and I’m sure somebody on AB will tell me if any of this has changed) they work an eight day pattern which consists of two days, two nights and four days off. The days are 9am-6m and the nights are 6pm-9am. However, during the night shifts they are not required to work unless they are called out. Beds are provided for their comfort at night.
This means that unless they are called out at night they work just eighteen hours every eight days – that is a working week of just under sixteen hours. Most of them have second jobs or run their own businesses. No other full time employees could do the alternatives work they do – they would not have the time.
This shift pattern, which is understandably jealously guarded, was devised when large numbers of fires occurred at night and this is no longer the case. Reform of the shift system is long overdue.
[Part Two]
However, having said that, there are serious failings on both sides when it comes to the negotiations over this reform. Firstly, they have been going on for more than a year with no significant progress or concessions from either side. Secondly, the FBU’s cynical strategy of calling a strike on November 5th beggars belief. But lastly, the gung-ho attitude of Brian Coleman, chairman of the London Fire Authority, who threatens to sack firefighters who refuse to sign new contracts, does not come at the top of the list of industrial relations good practice. Mr Coleman was interviewed on LBC today. He suggested that a man whose house had burnt down in a blaze that was tackled by a stand-in crew during the last strike, and who criticised the stand-in crew may have “hidden allegiances”. So it seems now people are happy to see their house burnt down so long as they can make a political point. Priceless!
I believe the proposals are to retain the eight day shift pattern but change the shifts to two twelve hour shifts. This does not seem too drastic and may even help those employees with second jobs. But the FBU does not like the management’s bully boy tactics and management want to exert their muscles. This dispute needs a speedy resolution or it will end in tears. But it seems the two protagonists are probably not the best bodies to achieve a settlement.
However, having said that, there are serious failings on both sides when it comes to the negotiations over this reform. Firstly, they have been going on for more than a year with no significant progress or concessions from either side. Secondly, the FBU’s cynical strategy of calling a strike on November 5th beggars belief. But lastly, the gung-ho attitude of Brian Coleman, chairman of the London Fire Authority, who threatens to sack firefighters who refuse to sign new contracts, does not come at the top of the list of industrial relations good practice. Mr Coleman was interviewed on LBC today. He suggested that a man whose house had burnt down in a blaze that was tackled by a stand-in crew during the last strike, and who criticised the stand-in crew may have “hidden allegiances”. So it seems now people are happy to see their house burnt down so long as they can make a political point. Priceless!
I believe the proposals are to retain the eight day shift pattern but change the shifts to two twelve hour shifts. This does not seem too drastic and may even help those employees with second jobs. But the FBU does not like the management’s bully boy tactics and management want to exert their muscles. This dispute needs a speedy resolution or it will end in tears. But it seems the two protagonists are probably not the best bodies to achieve a settlement.
New Judge, I think money, shift patterns and whatever are all part of the package. I used to work shifts I didn't much like; but I was paid extra for doing them and so I didn't complain or strike over them. If I'd been paid £20,000 I might have thought otherwise.
Incidentally, I don't know what London firefighting rates are but I read the other day that the average male working in London is paid £60,000 - a figure distorted at the high end by bankers' bonuses but still an indication of how much you need to get by on. If a London fireman was paid only £30,000 (say), he might well feel the need for a second job.
I don't share your view that 12-hour shifts are a good idea. I wouldn't much want my house fire to be atttended to by someone who'd been working that long, day or night; my own attention tended to wander after about 10 hours.
Incidentally, I don't know what London firefighting rates are but I read the other day that the average male working in London is paid £60,000 - a figure distorted at the high end by bankers' bonuses but still an indication of how much you need to get by on. If a London fireman was paid only £30,000 (say), he might well feel the need for a second job.
I don't share your view that 12-hour shifts are a good idea. I wouldn't much want my house fire to be atttended to by someone who'd been working that long, day or night; my own attention tended to wander after about 10 hours.
Hi many years ago I was in the fire service and we wanted to be the same as police with no strikes allowed but to have this we wanted the same type of conditions and we were told no. Some have said about firemen doing a second job, well when I was in we were not allowed a second job and if caught doing one would have been disciplined and even fired in certain circumstances. They do work an 8 day work pattern but on the evening shift we did have to work, ie training, catch up on paperwork, going out to premises for fire checks which may not have been open during the day shift and cleaning equipment and it was only after all this was done that we were allowed to relax and sleep if we had the chance.
At the moment, jno, if your house catches fire at 8:30am the crew attending will have been on call for fourteen and a half hours.
I don’t know where you worked, shedman, but in my experience virtually all “full-time” firefighters had secondary employment. Indeed it was the very reason many of them joined the service. During the recent negotiations management said they had considered the effect their proposals would have on those with second jobs, so it is a recognised fact and one that is obviously accepted.
There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors from both sides in this dispute but they both need to grow up. The tears I suggested it will all end in will not be those of either the firefighters or Mr Coleman and his managers. They will be those of some poor sod who lost his house, his wife and children whilst he was working nights in a car factory when the firefighters were trying to protect their outdated shift pattern.
I don’t know where you worked, shedman, but in my experience virtually all “full-time” firefighters had secondary employment. Indeed it was the very reason many of them joined the service. During the recent negotiations management said they had considered the effect their proposals would have on those with second jobs, so it is a recognised fact and one that is obviously accepted.
There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors from both sides in this dispute but they both need to grow up. The tears I suggested it will all end in will not be those of either the firefighters or Mr Coleman and his managers. They will be those of some poor sod who lost his house, his wife and children whilst he was working nights in a car factory when the firefighters were trying to protect their outdated shift pattern.
As far as I am aware this has always been the norm, not to have second job. Yes I know a lot of them do but then the government went back on the deal they made after the strike of 1977 when overtime was stopped. When I joined just after the strike it was made clear that second jobs were not allowed, but when wages seem to be shrinking earning a few bob on the side was the norm. Unless things have changed the fireservice still do more hours per week than the average job.
The fire brigade is a well paid job round here, their shift system allows many of the officers to do two jobs if they choose to.
It makes perect sense to strike on bonfire night as that's when they're needed most, what hasn't helped their cause though is their refusal to help the victims in the tube bombings fearing a second detonation.
I don't expect anybody to wantonly risk their own life to save mine, but the risk of a roof collapsing is an equation that makes sense, the risk of another bomb, isn't, the officers who made those statements or hold those views should question their suitability for the job.
It makes perect sense to strike on bonfire night as that's when they're needed most, what hasn't helped their cause though is their refusal to help the victims in the tube bombings fearing a second detonation.
I don't expect anybody to wantonly risk their own life to save mine, but the risk of a roof collapsing is an equation that makes sense, the risk of another bomb, isn't, the officers who made those statements or hold those views should question their suitability for the job.
Right on cue. I've got commercial cleaners in a property today, clearing it out. We were talking about fire risk from burning waste they removed. One of the men reassured me that , if a fire breaks out, he is a fireman and pointed to the badge stitched on his jumper. That was this afternoon. If there's a rule against working a day job then there's one fireman in this area, Cambridge, who is ignoring it.
-- answer removed --
