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

In any pay dispute, it's very easy to compare the pay of whatever group feels underpaid to how much politicians get, and how much their increase is. It's very cheap way of getting a round of applause to attack politicians.

But I think that politicians are underpaid for the job they do, the hours they work, and the responsibilities that they have. It's partly why so many of them have second jobs (consultancies etc). The less that politicians are paid, the more likely they are to be prone to taking more and more consultancy work, money in brown envelopes and so on. Granted MPs are paid a huge pile of cash relative to most people, and there's no shortage of people who want to be MPs. It's also a vocation.

It's a nic rhetorical flourish, but the serious consequences of not paying MPs properly are quite serious. Lower quality people doing the job, the risk of more corruption and less diligence, and so on.

Otto

But you could make much the same points about the firefighters!

And whether you would want to do their job for the pay they get very much depends on your viewpoint. I probably wouldn't and I do think they're worth more, but I don't agree with how they're going about making their case.
Someone on the minimum wage might think that a starting salary of £20-odd grand was pretty good, even given the conditions.

Good on the firefighters, this is the only way that public sector people will get decent pay, negotiate all you want but the bosses can always just say no, and then what is left for you. 40% seems just to be a starting point for bartering rather than all or nothing.

I certainly would not do their job for what they are on, I am almost at their top end, and all I do is sit on my arse and wander h2g2 I wonder how much the people saying the firefighters should just take what they are given would pay to be rescued from a burning building? Well, until later....
BCNU - Crescent

If 40% is just a starting point for bartering, then why hasn't it changed at all since it was adopted at the FBU Conference in May?

"fact that firefighters are considered manual/semi-skilled labourers is just laughable"

Not really, they don't need a high standard of education etc. and the equipment they use is advanced but that doesn't mean it is nesiceraly hard to use. And the level of skill ect. required is no more than that required by say a bricklayer, plasterer, electritian, plumber or other semi skilled manual worker.


"I agree that paramedics, doctors, nurses etc are worth more money than they currently get...The arguement 'Well the Paramedics work for peanuts - so why shouldn't you?'"

It seems some people have mis-understood my original point about the nurses & teachers being more deserving. It's not that because they are paid badly so should fire fighters be paid badly. The fact is in the real world we all have to live within our means, this is equally true for the government, and as there are limited resources to fund pay for public workers then the real proffesionals (ie. teachers and nurses) should get more than fire fighters who are not badly paid, £21k is a good wage! Ask any ordinary non-graduate worker, most of who earn much less than this.
Also the point was we have a shortage of teachers and nurses but too many fire fighter. The proposed changes to the shift patterns is not about reducing hours but reducing numbers where they are not required, i.e night shifts. And if the pay of fire fighters is so bad concidering these apparent risks then why are there 40 people trying for every Job?

The way the fire fighters are blackmailing the public is unethical and un-professional. They could have done ther things like some sort of working to rule. Then the nerve of the union to say that there members are humaniterian and would not want anyone to be put at risk is a joke, if they really were humanitarian then they would not be striking, but talking sense rather than making demands! I hope that any resolution to this strike will include a no-strike condition on all fire fighters as is the case for the police, who incidently also have a dangerous job and don't earn the £30k being demanded by the FBU.

"this is the only way that public sector people will get decent pay, negotiate all you want but the bosses can always just say no, and then what is left for you."

The answer is: leave and go and work for someone else, who will pay you more, just the same as every other type of worker who can't blackmail there employer or the public into giving them what they want.

But they can't do that can they? Since with their qualifications and skills etc. they would find it hard to find another better paid job!

I think the 40% is unrealistic, perhaps such a job deserves a high wage, perhaps not. I think the fire fighters gripe is that the most they can expect to earn is circa £23,000, this is not true for nurses, or teachers (although as almost everyone would agree these people are also underpaid).

Another example is univeristy researchers, I have had to study for 7 years to get my PhD (4years undergrad, post grad). I only have to be paid £18,000 at university I'm not bitter as my qualifications allow me to work else where for better pay and conitions and I dont have a ceiling of £23,000


However, the fire fighters need to accept that modern working conditions, or changes to pension stucture must be accepted as part of any substantial rise.

The fact is the country cant afford it other wise, if the fire fighters get a straight 40% what will happen when all the nurses, ambulance crews, teachers, university resarchers and teachers etc go on strike? I think the government are right to oppose the 40%, I think the fire fighters deserve more than 11%

"I think the fire fighters gripe is that the most they can expect to earn is circa £23,000, this is not true for nurses, or teachers "

As I understand it £23k is the ceiling for an ordinary fire fighter, presumably managers/fire chiefs, regional commanders etc do earn more.
Thisw is exactly the same for nurses who to earn this much would have to be premoted into management or even regional responsibility. It is also true for teachers who have to take on more responsibility (like departmental head etc.) in order to earn more.

Nurses can earn quite substantial amounts of money depending upon their circumstances. True the basic salary for a newly qualified nurse is only £17,000 but with a reasonable amount of experience this rises to around £22,000 for a standard 37.5 hour working week.

On top of this is the additonal rates for out of hours and weekend work, which just like firefighters, nurses have as a normal part of their roster. Depending upon the Trust that they work for these rates are between 30% and 60% of basic salary.

Then there is the overtime that they can get. Again the quantity of this does to some extent depend upon the skills they have and the location of the Trust, but I've never heard of a nurse who can't get any additional hours if s/he so chooses.

...I mean 30% and 60% on top of basic salary...

>If 40% is just a starting point for bartering, then why hasn't it changed at all since it was adopted at the FBU Conference in May?<

Maybe a little thing like not being taken seriously by *the employers* and a sensible counter proposal being put on the table?

As to Gilchrist doing his homework and commisioning his own survey - well, good on him. Why is it always seen as negative to get off your backside and ask questions?

There has been talk in my job of making it shift based (it'll never happen). The MINIMUM that would put me on, with the standard 20% shift allowance for civil servants, is just over 27k. I sit on my arse all day (and will do all night, if it comes to it ) and shuffle bits of paper. For that, I'd be worth more than a firefighter on a similar shift pattern?

I may know I do a good and important job, but I'm not that arrogant.

Tell a lie, it'd be just under 29k.

"Why is it always seen as negative to get off your backside and ask questions?"

Do you see it as negative, or are you merely speaking on behalf of people that disagree with you? I'm sure you can be relied on to represent them fairly

You seem to be saying you are over paid?!? But, just because you are an over paid public employee that is no argument for saying that fire fighters should also be over paid!

Yeah, lend us a tenner

So that's what those bits of paper he spends all day shuffling are...

I wish. On my present salary, I'm still 1 1/2k below the national average wage.

I don't consider myself overpaid. I consider the firefighters (and the teachers, nurses, paramedics and all the others) to be GROSSLY underpaid.

I realise that this is slightly off thread but where are you all based? Location has a huge impact on whether a salary can be deemed to be a living wage. If you are in a high cost location i.e. London, your salary expectations have to be higher than if you do the same role in the sticks. Many 'non-professional' people in London are forced to take second, even third jobs to afford to live in their home town and if they leave, who else will step in to do the low paid jobs instead?

Back on track - On TV this evening - 15 mins before the strike started, two firemen were interviewed about it. Neither could afford to live in London, they work in Lambeth but one lives in Hastings and the other in Dover - that is some commute - and if they change their working practices and get go home early on quiet night (see post 22 - *They asked for 40% - they get offered 11% over two years on the condition they all get sent home at night if there are no fires* ) how they heck can they come back in time for an emergency?

I think this is part of the problem.

What the firefighters were asking for was a pay rise which countered the 25 years of persistantly below average pay rises and brought them back onto a level playing field with the lower paid of the public service workers.

Once they were back to being poorly paid rather than poverty paid, they were then willing to go into seperate and binding talks about the long term future of the fundamental working practices and modernisation as long as both sides were bound by the talks.

instead the government steped in and insisted on yet another review (which they insisted the fire fighters cooperate with) which was not binding on the government, but was binding on the fire fighters.

it is hardly surprising that they refused to cooperate.

also, almost every time thet the employers talk about "modernisation of the fire service" they are not actually talking about modernisation. they are talking about reductions in staffing and cost cutting.

while I agree that there is no way that the government can give them much this year, the current government offers are an insult.

unless you are prepared to offer a living wage to those who only earn £5000 per year as volunteer fire fighters, you can't expect them to give up their other work.

also, modern fire fighers are no more "semi-skilled" than doctors and paramedics. while it was possible after the failure of the previous pay formula to recruit someone and say "here's how you hold a hose", that is not the case any more.

even the fire fighters accept that the current system doesn't reflect reality any more, but the government attitude of "wait them out and hit them with a big stick when someone dies" is unhelpfull in the extreme.

Xyroth, there haven't been 25 years of consistently below average pay rises, it's a myth that even the FBU denies - see post 35.