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

Re Orangefish - post 45

"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.



Excuse me whilst I quietly explode

Do you have any idea what you are talking about Orangefish???

Unlike a bog-standard office job, where the most important decision you'll have to take is what to do for lunch... When a firefighter makes a decision he's got to do it instantly, and that decision could cost himself, his collegues or a member of the public, their lives! - Plumber? Electrician? I think not!

Being a firefighter isn't just about operating the equipment (although I'd be interested to know whether you have ever put on a BASCA or operated a TIC?

Professionalism in this case isn't just judged by ability to use a PC or having a university degree, its having undergone rigourous training, not only in the physical aspects of the job, but also the mental aspects. It takes a great deal of professionalism to work efficiently as a team when you're wearing breathing apparatus, can't hear a thing, can't see a thing (literally, you can't see your hand when its touching your visor) and are searching a burning building looking for a casualty, wondering at what stage the ceiling is going to fall down around your ears!

Does that sound 'semi-skilled' to you!


Whisky - Ex-RN (thus ex-trained firefighter)

Its the idea of a plumber or plasterer who earns less than £23,000 per year that makes my mind boggle.

When the firefighters have been interviewed about pay it often comes down to the cost of housing. When they settled on the pay formula back in the seventies they wanted their pay linked to skilled manual workers as in carworkers/shipyards etc. At the time these jobs were pretty high up on the ladder and firefighters could be confident of a decent place in the housing market. Since then we have seen the demise in manufacturing and the rise of skilled office-based work. It is the latter that is driving the housing boom and the firefighters have seen themselves fall behind. Forty percent would put them back up the ladder and I have no doubt that the government could afford to settle but what about the million workers in the Health Service? A large proportion of them can't even afford to get on the bottom rung of the ladder and if a two day firefighter strike is a public danger imagine what a two day NHS strike would do. The NHS in my opinion deserve thirty grand just as much as the firefighters but as they won't strike they won't get it.

Agreed 3rd man.


Anyone thought about the anarchy of a two day police strike?

Which is exactly why

a) the government has always felt safe offering s****y pay deals to NHS satff, because they *know* they won't strike to support pay claims. I suspect it is back-firing badly now with another set of head hunters from Australia and the USA in the country. We shall see.

b) the Police only have to breath about pay deals and they get pretty much what they want.

Is their rejection of 11% based on the fact that it is tied to a change of shift patterns? If there is an end to the 2 days on, 2 nights on, 4 days off pattern then many would have to give up their second jobs. It seems that they want to be paid a decent living wage (and why not) but retain the conditions that allow them to have a second job as well - something not possible for all the nurses, teachers, police, paramedics, etc etc etc.

Isn't that having their cake and eating it too?

I think that it was mostly linked to the fact that it was an offer of 4% this year, 7% next year.

I've been involved in paydeals like that. The second half never materializes and 4% this year is laughable anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,839358,00.html

A small cross section of opinion, including that of a couple of Firefighters.

Just a thought about the argument for a fire fighter being semi-skilled or skilled. I think anyone one would agree that a junior doctor is a more skilled job than a firefighter, should fire fighter be paid more than junior doctors (who work significantly longer hours)?

FYI I support the fire fighters but think they are pushing the limits of expectancy.

I think junior doctors have a somewhat significant prospect of a substantial pay rise to look forward to in the future. Even GP's earn about £50,000 a year on average...
Not a good example.

You're not comparing like with like: no-one stays as a junior doctor for their entire career.

The FBU have rejected the 11% offer because it is a crap deal.

They have always made clear that they are prepared to discuss fundamental reforms of the fire service once the pay issue is sorted out.

I was chatting to a mate at work about this today and he reckons that the Firefighters were due a 4% pay increase this year regardless, plus another one next year, which in total amounts to an 8% increase over two years.

This 'increased' pay deal offered by the government is nothing like the 11% currently being banded about and is supposed to be more like a 1 and a half% increase in real terms.

Please don't ask me how or why this is so, I am simply saying what I have heard.

So if the firefighters get their 40% they would then be prepared to give up their generous conditions for nothing? Or would they want another 40% for that?

Nobody knows because the FBU won't discuss conditions until they've got their 40%.

...or at least an acceptable offer.

It is acceptable, just not to the FBU.

It isn't acceptable to their members either, or the strike would be crumbling, and it isn't.

Attempting to hang this on the faceless 'FBU' and Gilchrist isn't going to wash. He had endorsement from well over 80% of his membership, who have backed their demands with a solid strike.

It may look acceptable to you Mycroft, it obviously isn't to the ordinary firefighters.

I believe the junior doctor is comparable, I know its not like with like, bet then is the fire fighters job similar to a nurses or a police mans? Not really. It takes 5 years to become a fully trained doctor, on no money, trianee fire fighter are paid, sure a doctor could get more but that wasnt my argument.

What I'm tring to say is the skills argument is non-sense as a junior doctor is infinately more skilled than a firefighter, but would be paid less if the FBU has its way. So if you recieve payment according to percieved skill then you would have to pay the doctor more.

What I think should happen is that firefighter should start on a lower wage and be able, with experience, to work upto the 32K mark, rather than being stuck at a single wage for many years.

A similar scheme is in place for univerisy researchers, ie you start on a "low" wage (~18K) but depending on age + experience work upto ~30K, aftter which promotions (e.g. become a lecturer, or in the firemans case, manager)can allow you to earn even more.

As you can imagine a lot of people would be P****** off if a 16 yo serves 4 years so at 20 is on 32K. Many people with pHd wont see that kind of money until ~30 (and wont have been paid until they were ~25). So as you can see such a scheme is a slap in the face for those who have spent time and money being educated.

What if these kind of jobs pay more than jobs available to those who have gone to university at, great expense? What signal does that send out to kids?

You and your assumptions...

Actually, I was referring to the RFU, who said:

"The 11.3% increase, spread over 12 months, subject to acceptance of new ways of working, form the basis for negotiation and settlement. We call upon the FBU to show maturity and leadership and to enter into discussions with the Bain inquiry.

We understand the disappointment of our wholetime colleagues at the current offer, but blame for this has to be laid at the door of the FBU for their unrealistic heightening of expectations against the consistent statement of the employers and the government that said the claim was not justified and any offer would have strings. The FBU were not only content with previous pay rises, they were vigorously defending the current pay formula, until they decided something needed to be done to head off the looming modernisation issues arising from the 1995 Audit Commission report and the new standards of fire cover."