Last edited:
Firefighters set to strike.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
someone should set some fire stations on fire and see if the strike is genuine or some fire fighters houses/cars
trollface.jpg
what time is the strike anyway? sometime when it's likely nothing will happen and all the fire people will be sleep striking?
trollface.jpg
what time is the strike anyway? sometime when it's likely nothing will happen and all the fire people will be sleep striking?
Edit: found an actual story about this and it contains some rather more important information, such as how most firefighters over 50 can not meet the national requirements, hense expecting them to remain firefighters is definitely not in the interest of public safety.
If you are going to post a story like this, give us a link and not some cut down daily mail style article containing basically zero information, not least because we then have no source for the the drivel.
If you are going to post a story like this, give us a link and not some cut down daily mail style article containing basically zero information, not least because we then have no source for the the drivel.
Last edited:
I have added the link to the BBC article.
No, it is about allowing the ones who retire early (50's) a full pension.
Their argument stems from the fact that between the age of 50-54 only half of them meat the fitness requirements and above than only a third do, which suggests that making them continue to 60 to get a full pension is not in the interest of public safety.
The above is from a new story which says it got the figures from a "government revue" so take them with a grain of salt, but still that is a fairly compelling argument
Last edited:
That's a very rude thing to say. These men and women have contributes shedloads from their wages every fortnight (bare in mind its not a well paid job) and now if at 50 my father cannot meet the physical requirements he will have FORTY PERCENT of his pension wiped out and kept by Westminster..
An independent report (have it on paper will try to find sauce, dad got it through work) found that for Firefighters to have a career which would put them in a position to pass the aged 50 test they would have needed to been Olympic athletes or ex special forces to maintain the cardiovascular performance over the years.
Exactly, I hope that after some more sauce comes out in this thread that people will see this isn't well paid office workers striking over their 1 hour lunches...
On the face of it thats quite sickening.
Sadly some people see the word "Union" and lose all sense of perspective. Expect comments like "if they don't like it, they can always leave". It's really sad the way that the Unions have become a dirty phrase when it would be in most people's interests if we had a more Teutonic approach where employee unions are a key part of good industrial relations and good business performance. For sure the Trades Unions aren't blameless as to why this attitude prevails, and strikes like this are just so counterproductive
Was bound to happen. They've just stuffed the Police on our pensions, so it was only a matter of time before they turned on the Fire Service.
It will only end badly. The last time they went on strike their leadership threw in the towel rather quickly due to the spotlight turned onto the working practices of the Fire service - don't get me wrong they do a great job, but when the media went to town on them telling people how much time off they get, how good their pensions are and how few jobs they actually attend to, the strike went a bit pear shaped.
This will probably go the same way. Fire Brigade goes on strike. Lots of people who don't get public sector pensions will be interviewed on TV giving their views that they wished they got a nice pension and the ability to retire at 60 and then the media will put the boot in the first time there is a fatality when the service is on strike. The ordinary Fire fighters are going to be on a hiding to nothing.
Thing is with most of the Emergency services/Armed Forces the wages are good, but not spectacular. The only saving grace is the prospect of a reasonable pension and a fairly early retirement after some pretty harrowing service. The Government don't understand this since they're all too removed from real life - and before anyone pipes up saying they're all easy jobs and a doddle, if that was the case everyone would be a Police Officer/Fire Fighter/Paramedic/Nurse/Member of the Armed Forces wouldn't they?
It will only end badly. The last time they went on strike their leadership threw in the towel rather quickly due to the spotlight turned onto the working practices of the Fire service - don't get me wrong they do a great job, but when the media went to town on them telling people how much time off they get, how good their pensions are and how few jobs they actually attend to, the strike went a bit pear shaped.
This will probably go the same way. Fire Brigade goes on strike. Lots of people who don't get public sector pensions will be interviewed on TV giving their views that they wished they got a nice pension and the ability to retire at 60 and then the media will put the boot in the first time there is a fatality when the service is on strike. The ordinary Fire fighters are going to be on a hiding to nothing.
Thing is with most of the Emergency services/Armed Forces the wages are good, but not spectacular. The only saving grace is the prospect of a reasonable pension and a fairly early retirement after some pretty harrowing service. The Government don't understand this since they're all too removed from real life - and before anyone pipes up saying they're all easy jobs and a doddle, if that was the case everyone would be a Police Officer/Fire Fighter/Paramedic/Nurse/Member of the Armed Forces wouldn't they?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,172
While I do sympathize as firefighters do an outstanding job, how much exactly is 40% of the pension? How much does he pay and how much will he receive if he retires 17 (seventeen!) years earlier than other people? Not having a go but without actual figures its difficult to really comment on the issue. Most public sector workers receive extremely generous pensions, far and above what anyone else can expect, so a 60% pension for retiring 17 years earlier seems very good to me?
Last edited:
With the significant changes in the nature of the fire fighting service in the UK this isn't necessarily a problem though. A lot of fire brigade work is now fire prevention which does not need the same level of activity as fire fighting. Reorganising the service so the older fire fighters are primarily assigned to that fire prevention work would be one way of allowing them to continue to work to 60.
Its a pretty silly argument.
If you're unfit to do the job, you're unfit. That leaves several options.
Pay more into pensions so you can retire earlier.
Accept a smaller pension per year to cover the early retirment.
Do what other physical jobs employees have to do, which is find a more suitable job. Be it inside the fire or otside the fire service.
Now I know nothing about this, so maybe theres more to it, but if this thing hinges around unfit after the age of 50 like your posts suggests it is not an argument at all for a strike.
Last edited:
Lord Jaffa, if the Fire Service is anything like the Police, what they are expecting people to do is to work longer, pay more into the pension and actually get less out at the end than those retiring today. Is that fair? When they signed up the conditions of service and the pension contributions were set at a certain level. They knew that they would do perhaps 25 to 30 years, pay in X amount and get out Y. Sure the amount was generous, but that's how the Emergency Service Pensions work - wages are adequate, the work potentially life threatening and the pension the reward. Bear in mind many Emergency Service staff do not get to the end. I have known a few officers in my Force who have died in service attending to incidents and one who used to work for us who transferred and was shot dead. The same thing happens in the Fire Service - quite a few don't come home at the end of the shift.
The thing is many private sector workers have wages far far higher than Emergency Service staff. They could have invested it in a good pension. Many don't. Some did and the pension companies have cut their forcasts - but is that any reason to say well I've been shafted so why not the Emergency Services?
The thing is many private sector workers have wages far far higher than Emergency Service staff. They could have invested it in a good pension. Many don't. Some did and the pension companies have cut their forcasts - but is that any reason to say well I've been shafted so why not the Emergency Services?
If danger is the main motivator behind pensions then we should be paying more for farmers, fishermen and construction workers. All have a much higher chance of dying at work than the police or fire service.