Firefighters' strike - right or wrong?

[Saxondale]

No it was the collapse of several large financial institutions leading to the recession that caused that large deficit. Seriously these schemes have been in place for many years, why is it a big problem now? If it's so good then you should have trained as a firemen I guess.

 

No, the collapse of several large financial institutions contributed to an economic crisis, but the public budget deficit is solely caused by public spending. That's not my opinion or anybody else's, that's just fact.

[The God Emperor]

No it was the collapse of several large financial institutions leading to the recession that caused that large deficit. Seriously these schemes have been in place for many years, why is it a big problem now? If it's so good then you should have trained as a firemen I guess.

there is a problem now because these schemes and the welfare state in general work like ponzi scheme. the past beneficiaries are paid by future (now present) investors. its causing a problem because we're having to pick up the bill for the good times of the past

[ADK]

No, the collapse of several large financial institutions contributed to an economic crisis, but the public budget deficit is solely caused by public spending. That's not my opinion or anybody else's, that's just fact.

 

Surely an increase in the cost of benefits due to higher rates of unemployment combined with a reduction in tax revenue due to poor business results and lower employment would explain a budget deficit.

 

You can't just state as fact that it is caused by "public spending". Maybe taxes are too low? Maybe running a deficit during a recession is actually sensible (it is).

[Raj]

WRONG..****ers are on cushy street  most of the working day(when they watch sky etc...)and most have second jobs anyway!

[Saxondale]

Surely an increase in the cost of benefits due to higher rates of unemployment combined with a reduction in tax revenue due to poor business results and lower employment would explain a budget deficit.

 

 

 

Of course that would contribute. But the deficit was absolutely vast before we even fell into recession and, had public spending continued at the same rate as under the previous Labour administration, would only have got larger.

 

You can't just state as fact that it is caused by "public spending". Maybe taxes are too low? Maybe running a deficit during a recession is actually sensible (it is).

 

Could you seriously find anybody who thinks taxes are too low?

 

Running a deficit is not an issue per se, but the size of our current deficit is eye-watering.

[ADK]

We have a large deficit and yet the government are still trying to bribe the electorate by guaranteeing mortgages with public money and paying for free school meals.

 

I think we can afford to pay public sector workers a fair wage.

[Saxondale]

We have a large deficit and yet the government are still trying to bribe the electorate by guaranteeing mortgages with public money and paying for free school meals.

 

I think we can afford to pay public sector workers a fair wage.

 

A fair wage is what everybody wants. The question is about what is deemed fair and what is deemed excessive.

[Guest MattP]

We have a large deficit and yet the government are still trying to bribe the electorate by guaranteeing mortgages with public money and paying for free school meals.

 

I think we can afford to pay public sector workers a fair wage.

 

They are being paid more than a fair wage.

[Strokes]

I hope your houses don't catch fire whilst you are arguing for their rights to strike. If a fire fighters career ends around 50 why doesn't he/she get another job before retiring at the same age as tge rest of us?

[Alf Bentley]

They are being paid more than a fair wage.

 

Prospects, the graduate careers web site reports that firefighters' starting salary is: £21,157, rising to £28,199.

Pay for a fire station manager is up to £40,109, while an area manager gets between £41,881 and £53,934.

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/firefighter_salary.htm

 

Wasn't there recently a thread where people were complaining about how poor they were on their salaries of £60k to £100k?!

 

Just as well firefighters aren't doing something really useful, like working as accountants or running gambling web sites while spending all their time posting right-wing comments on a football forum!!!

   

[Guest MattP]

Prospects, the graduate careers web site reports that firefighters' starting salary is: £21,157, rising to £28,199.

Pay for a fire station manager is up to £40,109, while an area manager gets between £41,881 and £53,934.

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/firefighter_salary.htm

 

Wasn't there recently a thread where people were complaining about how poor they were on their salaries of £60k to £100k?!

 

Just as well firefighters aren't doing something really useful, like working as accountants or running gambling web sites while spending all their time posting right-wing comments on a football forum!!!

   

 

Put the booze down!

 

They know what they get when they sign up and as has been mentioned here they are paid for the danger more than the hours as a vast proportion of them seem to have second jobs to go with it. They know what they signed up to.

 

Fair point on the last line mind, that's the reason I'm working now and it's 2.51am. Ballache.

[Guest ttfn]

A mate of mine is a fireman and spends about half of his shift sleeping.

Many have second jobs because they get paid to sleep 20 hours a week. I find it hard to get too worked up about them being "mistreated".

[Alf Bentley]

Put the booze down!

 

They know what they get when they sign up and as has been mentioned here they are paid for the danger more than the hours as a vast proportion of them seem to have second jobs to go with it. They know what they signed up to.

 

Fair point on the last line mind, that's the reason I'm working now and it's 2.51am. Ballache.

 

I had put the booze down by that point - in fact, I'd sobered up enough to go to bed after that. 

Lots of work to do today, so must show the iron self-discipline of a gambling site maestro today! 

[Captain...]

Put the booze down!

 

They know what they get when they sign up and as has been mentioned here they are paid for the danger more than the hours as a vast proportion of them seem to have second jobs to go with it. They know what they signed up to.

 

Surely that argument works the other way as well, they aren't complaining about the deal they got when they signed up, they are complaining now that the deal has changed/is changing and they will be required to work another 10 years when they are less physically able.

[Jace]

I think several of us who work in public sectors are getting pretty fed up with committing to a job and signing to a particular contract only for the employers to think its ok after years of service to turn around and say, well actually we are just going to change your contract that you agreed to because we don't want to pay you as much as we agreed before.

I got no problem and neither has anyone else if pensions and terms need to be changed for the future but that should be done to the future contracts offered not to a contract that a fireman for example had already agreed to 25 years ago only for the employer to be allowed to change it now. if the employer is not going to honour their side of the agreement then it is no wonder the employees want to strike why should they keep to their side of the agreement? Good on the fire service I say if they want to strike stand up for yourself

[indierich06]

Prospects, the graduate careers web site reports that firefighters' starting salary is: £21,157, rising to £28,199.

Pay for a fire station manager is up to £40,109, while an area manager gets between £41,881 and £53,934.

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/firefighter_salary.htm

 

Wasn't there recently a thread where people were complaining about how poor they were on their salaries of £60k to £100k?!

 

Just as well firefighters aren't doing something really useful, like working as accountants or running gambling web sites while spending all their time posting right-wing comments on a football forum!!!

   

 

Spot on.

 

Put the booze down!

 

They know what they get when they sign up and as has been mentioned here they are paid for the danger more than the hours as a vast proportion of them seem to have second jobs to go with it. They know what they signed up to.

 

Fair point on the last line mind, that's the reason I'm working now and it's 2.51am. Ballache.

 

You're right, they know what they signed up to, and now the government are trying to move the goalposts. If they want to bring in thse new pension regulations for new starters, then fine. But you can't just change the rules half way through. 

[pSinatra]

Fook it.   I'm retiring at 65 & not at 67, or whatever they decide the retirement age is by the time I get there.  That was the deal when I started work & I ain't changing.

 

I was fully in support of their strike a few years back, as I would have been in support of nurses, paramedics, etc.  They do a valuable job & a job that not all of us would be able to do or even stomach.  But to work in the public sector & to retire on a full pension at 50 is simply absurd.  Austerity or not.

 

They may do a job that many of us would not be able to stomach, but at 50 they are not decrepit.  It's sometimes physical work but no more physical than a large number of jobs where we are expected to work into our late 60's.  It sometimes can be dangerous, but there are many dangerous jobs that don't pay nearly as well, that carry danger all day every day & they will be not retiring to Spain at 50.

[Rincewind]

Is that all they get the quote above? Some may disagree but it seems wrong that jobs that involve risk, long hours, manual labour etc. are paid less than jobs where the greatest risk is RSI.

I know everyone cannot be on 50k plus but not to recognise what firefighters do and work out a fair deal is insensitive.

There are very few jobs now above 50k and while 30k used to be OK the gap between the low and middle income is not apparent with the way prices on the High street have risen over the last few years. Wages in real terms are falling except for a few which I doubt would include anyone on here.

As for should they strike I don't honestly know. I do not know the details of offers or what they are asking for and I have never done the job. I also find it hard to select an answer out of the poll choices because of the way they have been phrased.

 

I wonder how many fireman want to retire at 50? The pension would have to be good if they did not take up another career. I know its not old but some aspects of the job would require fast reaction and the aging process affects people different ways depending on lifestyle so I expect they are using 50 to be on the safe side.

On the other hand it was brought in a few years ago.

[MooseBreath]

Salary isn't the only reason to become a firemen though. Lots of people do it for the prestige and for an exciting and rewarding career. That's why there are hundreds of applicants for every position. The salary obviously isn't putting anyone off.

[Guest MattP]

Spot on.

 

 

You're right, they know what they signed up to, and now the government are trying to move the goalposts. If they want to bring in thse new pension regulations for new starters, then fine. But you can't just change the rules half way through. 

 

Because it's unsustainable, as has been mentioned when I started work retirement age was 65, now it's 67, I'm pretty sire I won't be retiring until 70 if I get there.

 

If you want to pay this lot what they signed up for then why not start making some voluntary contributions on your tax, because it's absurd to suggest I should be paying more tax for another twenty years to pay for someone to be sat on their arse at 50 because someone in the government promised something in 1988.

 

Fook it.   I'm retiring at 65 & not at 67, or whatever they decide the retirement age is by the time I get there.  That was the deal when I started work & I ain't changing.

 

I was fully in support of their strike a few years back, as I would have been in support of nurses, paramedics, etc.  They do a valuable job & a job that not all of us would be able to do or even stomach.  But to work in the public sector & to retire on a full pension at 50 is simply absurd.  Austerity or not.

 

They may do a job that many of us would not be able to stomach, but at 50 they are not decrepit.  It's sometimes physical work but no more physical than a large number of jobs where we are expected to work into our late 60's.  It sometimes can be dangerous, but there are many dangerous jobs that don't pay nearly as well, that carry danger all day every day & they will be not retiring to Spain at 50.

 

Spot on, it's a complete fantasy World to think you can retire at 50 on the pension contributions they are paying, whoever was in Government at the time these contracts were signed need locking up, surely they knew they weren't remotly feasible?

[Tommy G]

Wish I could strike over my pension, if I did I would lose my job and there would be 50 people behind me being interviewed to take it

 

Its an absolute joke they use the danger of their job as leverage to get a better pension? Their terms are beyond a joke as it is, retireing on a silly pension and mid 50's

 

Winds me up, the whole of the cushy public sector does!

[indierich06]

Because it's unsustainable, as has been mentioned when I started work retirement age was 65, now it's 67, I'm pretty sire I won't be retiring until 70 if I get there.

 

If you want to pay this lot what they signed up for then why not start making some voluntary contributions on your tax, because it's absurd to suggest I should be paying more tax for another twenty years to pay for someone to be sat on their arse at 50 because someone in the government promised something in 1988.

 

The you should be angry with the government for a complete lack of foresight when they offered these contracts years ago. I'm not saying it's sustainable at all, but it's not the workers who are to blame - it's the government who has lied to them and is now trying to pick their pockets. **** that. Those crooks in Westminster should be ****ing ashamed of themselves.

[Saxondale]

The you should be angry with the government for a complete lack of foresight when they offered these contracts years ago. I'm not saying it's sustainable at all, but it's not the workers who are to blame - it's the government who has lied to them and is now trying to pick their pockets. **** that. Those crooks in Westminster should be ****ing ashamed of themselves.

 

Everybody is angry about it. Far-leftist governments pandering to ridiculously powerful unions and knackering it for everybody.

[Guest MattP]

The you should be angry with the government for a complete lack of foresight when they offered these contracts years ago. I'm not saying it's sustainable at all, but it's not the workers who are to blame - it's the government who has lied to them and is now trying to pick their pockets. **** that. Those crooks in Westminster should be ****ing ashamed of themselves.

 

Which crooks currently in Westminster are responsible for promising these things 25 years ago?

[Zingari]

Which crooks currently in Westminster are responsible for promising these things 25 years ago?

Maybe we'll be asking the same question in 25 years time with regard to HS2.