h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the Figherfighter are being unreasonable in rejecting an 11% pay rise?

It seems to me that if any public money is to be spent giving public service workers a pay rise then there are many more worthy candidates, namely nurses and teachers.

Nurses start on about 15k and need to study at university for 3 years before they can start the job, with all the associated loans and cost. They to work unsocial hours, shifts etc. and have responsibilities that include life and death decisions.
Teachers start on about 17k and work very long hours. They also need to get a degree, often taking 4 years, and so start their working lives in debt (possably as much as 20k).
Both nurses and teacher provide vital services and are cronically short of new recruits.

The fire fighters on the other hand start on 23k, without having to get a degree and so be in debt. They are trained by there employers. They do work unsocial hours, but some of the time they are just sleeping and waiting for something to happen. They do a very valuable and brave job, but it is no more dangerous than many other occupations, inc builders and farm workers who are both more likly to die in connection with their work. And the fire service turns down thousands of people every year who want to be fire fighters. In these conditions there is no justification for such a massive pay demand. If any of us where to ask for a 40% pay rise when infaltion is only 2.5% then we would be told where to go, so why do fire fighters think they are an exception? It is also interesting that the retained fire fighters union are not suporting this action and their members work all week and do there part in keeping us safe in their spare time, for a real pitence.

It's time for the government to get mean and stop pandering to these unreasonable demands, send the troops in to use the real fire engines instead of ancient green goddesses.

There, rant over, so what do the rest of you think?

I think firefighters start on less than 23k - I thought it was more like 21k.

Nurses are horribly underpaid, and always have been. That's what you get for never going on strike. However, I don't think that is an argument for not paying firefighters more.

I've been a teacher. I worked quite long hours, but, it has to be admitted, pretty short years. 17k (if that's what new teachers start on) is risible, however.

Do I think a 40% rise is reasonable? No way! It's a good negotiating position but simply is never going to happen in one year - no employer, no government is going to wear that.

I think the real argument is now about 11% and whatever strings are attached. We may find that the 11% is eventually offered in one go, rather than phased, maybe a bit more, and that some of the strings become detached. Eventually either somebody surrenders or there is compromise - there is no third alternative. The clever thing to do is to find a compromise.

It's a pity this couldn't have been achieved without strike action, which I fear will lose the firefighters public support - particularly if people die - and you can bet your bottom dollar that the more right wing tabloids (which is most of them) will find some bodies they can lay at the door of the FBU.

And one of the problems is that salaries for these people are made on political decisions, not for business or supply and demand reasons.

I think, perhaps, that there is a shift in expectations as well. Perhaps peoples expectations are not that they should get an existence wage, but rather that they should have a living wage, to be able to afford the dvd player, the big telly, a decent house, a car that isn;t a banger etc. etc. I'm not passing judgement here, just an observation. It is plenty possible to live quite happily on 18 grand a year, I know as my brother in law, sister and their 4 kids do just this. 2 cars, a new motorbike. You just have to decide what you want to spend your money on. The kids don;t go without and the house is a nice house with room for them (albeit bought before the current boom!). This conversation is, by the way, the easiest way to wind him up, he's a paramedic. Fire Fighters are not the most populer people in the ambulance service right now.

One thing that doesn;t seem to have been mentioned much is that after 30 yrs a firefighter gets a full pension. Now go away and work out how much of your salary you would have to put in to get the same. Personally, I think nearing half mine per year. Kinda alters things a bit in my book.

Also, if the fire fighters do get their raise, what about the volunteer firefighters, what effect will it have on them (who were, I believe, against the raise that was being asked for). Oh, and for another question, if the remuneration rises to such levels, will the fireservice start getting people doing it for the money alone and not for the vocation?

Oh, and my personal opinion is that a) if they get it so should all the emergency services and b) they should hold a poll and ask the public how much more tax they would be willing to pay to enable the above to happen.

Why should vocational work, especially vocational work that means you may have to risk your life every time you go out on a call, be poorly paid?

Why should the fact that other people are poorly paid (and have settled for lesser pay deals in the past) mean that the firefighters shouldn't get paid a proper wage?

If you may have to retire by the time you are 48, by which time another form of employment may not be an optoin, why shouldn't you get a full pension?

Why should pimply arsed politicians, who do no good for the country and its people command wages in excess of £50,000 (and who voted themselves a pay rise in excess of 20% last pay round) tell people who *actually* work for a living that they cannot have a reasonable wage?

The people of this country have *repeatedly* indicated that they would be willing to pay more tax for better services. Mayhap it's time to put that to the test. But first, let's get rid of some budget expenditure we don't need. Like a war in Iraq and a nuclear detterent that is patently pointless.

Ah, now if you are going to tell us that politicians are overpaid I don't think you are going to get much argument from anybody.

Blues Shark said, "The people of this country have *repeatedly* indicated that they would be willing to pay more tax for better services." - I agree, and I think sometimes we forget that part of paying for better services is paying for the people who provide those services. And the firefighters are clearly worth more than they are currently paid - as are nurses, and paramedics.

Whether a 40% increase to £30,000 pa is a reasonable expectation is another question, however. If it IS reasonable, then all the examples of poorly paid public servant given above should expect to receive something similar. That's just not going to happen.

I'd gladly take a bit more from some of the fat cats who don't conspicuously merit their 7-figure salaries and redistribute it to somebody more deserving, but I'm not sure how popular that view is.

Captain Kebab, poorly rewarded public servant.

"It seems to me that if any public money is to be spent giving public service workers a pay rise then there are many more worthy candidates, namely nurses and teachers."

Teachers don't risk their lives on a daily basis saving people from firey buildings.

True, but the risks are not as great as the fire fighters would have us belive. As I have already said being a builder or a farm worker is statistically more dangerous.

Also if you examine the way people are paid you will discover that one major factor is the level of responsibility they hold. That is doctor is paid more than a nurse for example. And teacher have a high level of responsibility. They are responsible for the safety of 30 or so children, not to mention their education.

Also we don't hear the troops who are going to be standing in for the fire fighters complaining about the danger. Why? Maybe because the danger they have signed up to is a great deal higher, esp. at a time like this when war is a real possibility. They too are paid less on average than fire fighters.

And if the risks are that much of a concern that they justify such a pay demand, then why are there 40 people tryng to get every fire fighting job available?

It is true that figher fighters sometimes lose thire lives fighting fires, as the funeral of a fire fighter in the north this week illistrates. But, it make the news partly because it is realitivly rare. I can't remember the last time I heard of a fire fighter dying in the lne of duty.

I agree with Blues Shark wholeheartedly on this one. It is ridiculous to say that just because one 'vocational' role pays a derisory sum, all other should do so too - just because you do a job that you are committed to, and that helps others, does not mean you should be exploited.

A disproportionate amount of the wealth of this country is in the hands of a small group of people that earn obsecene amounts of money. These people do very little of anything that we rely upon to survive. Perhaps we should look at how to bring everyone up to a decent living wage - not just a barely scraped existance. Everyone (especially those that have not graduated from university) involved in anything from vocational work to street cleaners, bin-men, shop assistants, delivery drivers etc. deserve better. We all bang on about the nurses being appallingly paid - and they are, but what about the poor saps surviving on minimum wage keeping those same hospitals cleaned and maintained?

I guess you can tell from my tone that I support the firefighters. They do a difficult and dangerous job and are poorly paid (as are many of us) and if Mr Blair's recent edicts have any truth to them, that we are all about to be bombed and our airports and ports evicerated, I want properly qualified firefighters in post that do not have to take on second jobs just to survive. That way they can devote all their energies to saving the lives of the people that need them and not worrying about paying their mortgage.

Unreasonable? Never! After all we're not talking about labourers here; these people are one level above that! And they only start on £21,000 a year (more than most university graduates! More than junior managers in most organisations!) and have index-linked final-salary scheme pensions.

Unreasonable in an occupation which is over subscribed by...what is it ....4 to one or something?

Unreasonable to let the armed forces (not just the army incidentally - I work for the RAF so I know!) put themselves at risk because they can't use the state of the art equipment the firemen use?

Unreasonable to hold the public purse to ransome?

Just what yard-stick of reasonability are you using??????

I propose builders and farmers should be paid £30k a year, due to the risks the apparently take with their lives supplying us with buildings and food.

A lot of firefighters have a second job by the way.

Ok so everybody should be paid more, but 40% rise. And I dont think that the stupid amount politicians get is a reason for anyone else to get more, just a reason to reduce politians pay.

Hmmm, a pay rise, definately. 40%, they'll never get it. And if they do, I think Ill join the Fire Service.

Personally I don't think they expect to get 40 %, as someone said it's really more of a negotiating position, they'll settle for less.

What is on offer is not 11%, it is 4% *followed* by 7% next year.

I support their position, the £23,000 often quote is the maximum they can earn after 15 years of service! Not an appealing salary scheme in my book. If their position is anything like the one in my occupation there has been an effective pay cut over the last twenty years of probably around 40% (try thinking about a pay rise 2% *below* the inflation rate every year for twenty years...) so that is presumably where they get that figure from.
Good luck to them.

I wouldnt mind a full pension after 30 years though...

I don't know anything about their pension scheme.
How much do they get?

They get the number of years they've worked divided by 60 as their pension, plus a lump sum of three times this amount. So can have a maximum pension equal to half their final salary after 30 years service.

One fact that does get overlooked is that they pay in the region of 11% of their salary into the pension scheme to achieve that high level of final return. So in comparison terms to many workers in non contributary pension schemes, their salary is more like £20,000 rather than the £23,000 quoted.

It wasn't the FBU that came up with the figure of 40% an independent review came up with that figure as to how much we'd have to pay our firemen a professional wage. firemen are consider as non skilled and semi skilled workers - surely, given all the specialist equipment the bigrade uses now, they should be classed as professionals.

the scandal is that it takes a 40% pay increase to bring firemen's wages in line with other professionals. they have been chronically under-paid for the last 20 years. its time that changed.

can anyone explain to me WHY train-drivers and ticket inspectors are paid on average £28K and our fireman a derisory £23K?

Broadly speaking I support the firefighters’ argument for a pay increase (as well as all public sector workers who have been chronically underpaid for decades) but I really don’t see how the 40% claim, the strike and their apparent unwillingness to compromise on any of it, especially the changes to working practices, can be justified.
If they’d shown some inclination to meet the employers part way – at least to talk about changing the watch system etc – then I might have more sympathy. The gut reaction to dismiss the 11% over 2 years (something many council workers etc would fall over themselves to accept) really grates.
I think they will lose public support very quickly – there’s no greater turn-off than the Socialist Worker rhetoric that the union was spouting last night, however worthy the cause.

I definately think that that paramedics should be paid an equal amount. The fact that they get paid 18K is disgusting for a job which saves lives and can be dangerous, as seen by the rising numbers of attacks against healthcare professionals.

Interesting points. But then, presumably people choosing these jobs are doing so for some reason other than money. And remember, they chose to do this. They wanted the job, and presumably accepted the attendant dangers and remuneration. If they wanted a better paid job, why didn't they go for one? If the situation was so unequal, we would have no, or very few, services personel and there would be a crises prompting better conditions and pay offered by the government to tempt people into it. There isn't.

And since when was 23k not a 'proper' wage? Plenty of people on less than that, and often because they had no choice in job.

But whatever happens, there is a need to spread the wealth. I notice people having a go at fat cat industry moguls on here as well. Well in asking for 40% the fireservice are setting themselves up to be the fat cats on the services. Why SHOULD they get so much more than everyone else? Conversly, by one of the arguments above, why shouldn't the boss of a major international organisation get a 7 figure salary and lots of benefits? If s/he can get it, why not. Not their fault that others have not managed their careers and incomes as well is it?

As for politicians not being worth their money, well, how about we remove them all and see how long the country lasts?

I think I just find it very selfish the way that the fire service have gone about this. This could quite possibly drive to the core of our views of rewards and recognition of work done. It could be discussed in depth and bring about some long needed changes in views and opinions. But as long as it remains where it is now, it won't. It'll just end up in a slightly beneficial settlement, no-one will be really better off, some will probably be slightly worse off and a chance to review how we do things will have been missed.

The Fire Service's main objections, as far as I can see, revolve around the fact that the government removed the system by which their pay is normally decided, and replaced it with the (can't remember the name- the thing to ecide what should be done?), and freely admitted that they wouldn't necesarily stick to it anyway.

"As for politicians not being worth their money, well, how about we remove them all and see how long the country lasts?"

Anyone got a rifle and a ticket to Prime Minister's Questiopn Time?