Firefighters' strike - solution!

[brian]

It's simple, really -

You take all those hundreds of £millions we've been putting aside for the war with Iraq...

...but stay at home instead and give not just the firefighters, but ALL of the emergencies services, a one-off bonus from the war fund!


Btw - anyone think that Tony is being a prat with his talk of a wage increase, but only in tandem with "modernisation" of the Fire Brigade? [modernisation being a cute word for redundancies, less engines on the road, fewer stations.]

Maybe it's a rant, but this Labour government is far too concerned with mere statistics. I'd much prefer an inefficient police force that costs three times as much, but solves twice as much crime, than trimming down public services to barest minimum for maximum efficiency and a bag of "healthy" looking statistics.

Oh dear - is that too political?

[mac1]

I quite agree, we only want want with Iraq because our oil resources are steadily depleting. It's all about money.

Did you know that although Tony Blair offered the Fire Brigade an increase in pay he wanted to reduce their hours, more specifically at night, because less buisinesses are open at night, hence by his reasoning there are less fires at night. However those statistic that he holds so dearly are actually showing the opposite. Because there are less "civilians" about to prevent fires in the early stages there are in fact statistically more fires at night. Hence he should if anything be "modernsing" and giving them more hours not less.

It is a sad world we live in where the people who are paid to protect the innocents need to go on strike from doing just that, to be paid a decent wage! Moreover, we are part of a society who sees fit to stand by and allow our prime-minister to support Bush and take us toward war with Iraq without the consent of Parliament who were "ajurned" during the late summer. It's not far from a dictatorship in my eyes.

Oh dear - is that too political? >

[Archangel Scream]

Blair's offering 10% for all NHS staff now, isn't he? So it's affordable to give 1million people a 10% raise and pay for a war against Iraq...but not to make a serious 16% offer for 50,000 firefighters?

Blair is too concerned with statistics - and manipulating them. As for Parliament - well, we don't live in a real democracy anyway - not while Westminster is run by partisan politics and an unelected upper house.

[mac1]

:'( :'( Its terrible, :'( :'(
After not acheiving anything it appears that the head of the fire brigades union has been incredibly short-sighted and refused all offers saying he will accept no less than a 40% increase for all. Now dont get me wrong I think they deserve more and I am all for the strike but that is unrealistic. The government has now said, take 4% or nothing. The fire service could probably do with electing a new union delegate. I feel sorry for all those who will lose out on that possible 16%. Its real harsh that they all suffer because of one man's unrealistic short-sighted nature, or am I being too harsh on the union delegate :'( :'( :'(

[Cadfael]

I am all for them getting a 40% rise... but who will pay for this... the taxpayer... and if they get it... others will want it.. and the tax and rates bill be have to cover it... in short... I will be working to pay their wages.. I am already on a pittance. I also work in a sector where 16% would be unheard off... over any amount of time.

[brian]

When the dispute began, although 40% was the touted claim, it was widely reported that they'd compromise to 16%.

The talk of trying to collapse the Blair government has, though, simply continued a sad farce, where real issues were originally mooted for satisfaction.

Personally speaking, if I were in the cabinet, I'd suggest that rather than a direct pay increase, that the mergency services entire are given a similar range of benefits as the police enjoy. Sure, it would cost - but notably less in the long run. And it would allow both the government and the FBU to reach an greement that saved face for both.

Ah, darn - the politics again!

[mac1]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the eventual outcome of this situation was? I hope it didn't finish on 4% or nothing!

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

[kouncilor]

[quote author=Bigmacscanlan link=board=1;threadid=12;start=0#30 date=1038532640]
I quite agree, we only want want with Iraq because our oil resources are steadily depleting. It's all about money.[/quote]

*lol* Upwards of a $200 billion war.

Besides that, the oil won't be ready just like that *snaps fingers*

[SirRob]

Why should firefighters get such a huge pay rise? They don't have to get real qualifications, do they?

Nurses deserve a pay rise more. They work longer hours and have a much more stressful job (I assume). And if firefighter's do get a raise, teachers should have one as well.

[mac1]

Somebody made an incredibly cynical point to me today which I disagreed with, but in retrospect, he does have a point.

What he said to me is "By going on strike the Fire-Brigade have only confirmed that fact that they are not needed, the army did the job fine, why don't we just let the army take over these responsibilities."

I still disagree with his point. But I think he is right that the Fire Brigade do seem less important now than they did a year ago. This seems like a terrible thing to say, but I am sure my friend isn't the only one who thinks this way. Perhaps the Fire Brigade have unintentionally shot themselves in the foot.

[brian]

Yep - what first started out as a potentially noble strike with a wide space for compromise has fizzled away into a failed political challenge and an excuse to cut down the fire service.

And what is really sad is that, in the event of some future large-scale major emergency, people will wonder how on earth the emergency services had been slimmed down so much as to compromise their ability to cope with such a situation.

This government is far too concerned with statistics. Anyone who has ever played with statistics knows how easy they are to skew and frame. Politicians do that as a matter of routine. But the Blair government's quest to develop a cheap but statistically "validated" range of services is utterly flawed.

[Survivor]

I don't know about that...it seems that you want to design for optimal use.

Emergency services are (by definition) different, of course. But I would lean the difference into preventative measures rather than "disaster" corrective surpluses. Sprinklers rather than firefighters, to be simplistic. Of course, there are dangers to relying too much on preventative measures and having no disaster response capability. But the greater a catastrophic response capability you want to maintain, the more it has to conform to a low maintenance model, and maintaining a large firefighting force...isn't an optimal solution.

But it's a lot more "optimal" than not having the ability to respond to a full scale emergency. If they haven't come up with an alternative means of answering a real disaster, then scaling back the current force probably isn't a good idea.

[brian]

The trouble with the British government is that it wants the emergency services slimmed down to maxmium efficiency for least cost. My own perspective is that I'd rather have a larger and less efficient police force if it meant dealing better with crime. Burglary and car crime aren't treated seriously anymore. Maybe in some parts of the USA that would sound laughable, but it does seem that certain avenues of criminality are being tolerated more for the sake of cost. That has to sound like a ridiculous policy.

As for the fire service itself - if there were a big disaster then it would simply be a case of relocating resources - ie, sending crews from surrounding areas. But the question is one of ensuring that doing so not only allows for proper handling of such an emergency, but also that the areas crews are called from are not left without an essential life-saving service. I greatly fear that at some point in the future cut-backs are going to nefariously highlighted through such a disaster - then people will astonishingly wonder how they let such a service become so tenuously stretched. I guess Brits simply watch and wait and hope otherwise.

[Survivor]

Well, money is always a problem.

I divide the proper uses of money into two catagories.

1. To preserve life. This includes spending on basic nutrition, shelter, defense against immediate threats, and so forth.

2. To make more money. This includes all incentives for producing wealth that cost less than the wealth produced (for instance, if you pay a man $200 to produce $150 worth of, say...coal, it doesn't count). In a free market economy, this is how most money is spent, which is why so many people can live comfortably in these societies compared to other societies. It also includes direct investment in developing new sources of wealth, and spending to maintain a source of wealth (like a farm or something).

Anything else is just waste.

Now, spending on having a large reserve to deal with disasters is waste unless the disaster actually occurs in time for the money spent on maintaining the reserve to be commensurate with the disaster prevented. On the other hand, not taking reasonable measures to prevent disasters that are highly likely is either going to waste resources or lose lives that could have been preserved at low cost.

Anyway, if a disaster happens, it happens. There's nothing nefarious about it (unless it is arson for the purpose of highlighting the deficiency in firefighter's budget--this is not a suggestion!).

[nemesis]

The NFU is striking again but I have lost all sympathy. The cause was lost the moment it became political. Attempts to revert to pay issues have come far too late.