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

Sorry, I completely skipped the backlog.
Am I the only one who realizes that 40% is just a bargaining position? They'd quite clearly be happy with something between 15 and 25 % and I think they well eventually settle for about 20%, spread over a number of years.

Your right bob, I think its clear in the backlog that most people know its a bargining position, to be honest I think its a discussion about what people think they are intitled to and the implication such a large rise would have for other public sector workers such as nurses and police etc.

As some one has already said a lot depends on where you live. In London it is expencive to live (I know I moved there last year) and maybe there fire fighters should get more, but in other area there is no way you can say that £23k is not a living wage. In fact even in London lots of people live on less than £23k. There was one fire fighter on Radio 4 from the north this morning who said nothing less than the demanded £30k would get him back to work. That is rediculas since even skiled proffesionals in areas like that won't nesecerily earn that. Also this does not sound to me like it's a 'starting point for negotiations' but an un-flexible and non-negotiable demand.

The fact is there is no other job where you can walk out of school, do 8 weeks training, and then earn £21k. They may not have a great deal of promotion opertunities, but they know that at the start, if that wanted that they should have chosen another type of job.

Also if a fire fighter can be trained in 8 weeks and then start fighting fires, then maybe it's not as difficualt as some would like us to think? I realise they do more training on the job, but then so do most people.

As to the point someone made about them having to make life and death decisions. The truth is the real life and death decisions are made by the chief fire officer, who is paid more than £23k. And just becuase you work at a desk it does nt mean you don't make life and death decisions! Maybe not as quickly, but next time you get on an airoplane or have an operation then think about the engineers who designed the safty critical software and features that will keep you alive! I know this is not the same as making snap judgments quikly, but it is worth thinking about. And I won't mention those who designed the hi tech equipment that fire fighters use.

It's actually 16 weeks training, but it is paid. One of the main reasons there's no shortage of people applying to be firefighters is because there aren't many jobs you can apply for with no qualifications at 18 that will pay you upwards of £17k per annum from the first day of training.

however an awful lot of those applying couldn't do the job.

I even know some asthmatics who have applied for goodness sake.

also, the stuff the politicians are saying about london fire fighters makes it sound like they are on a good wage, but if you happen to live down south, but outside the "london waiting" area, you have the same problems, but a lot less money.

also, the current dispute is not about them wanting a massive pay rise, although that is how it is presented.

it is about every pay review for the past few years saying that they need a larger pay rise, and then being ignored.

any review can make suggestions, but the current one was going to be binding only on the firemen, hence the non-cooperation.

also, even though the current offer is based on the preliminary report of this review, the government has made no move to cover the costs of the pay rise.

if they are going to try and dictate terms in a pay dispute, they should put up the money to cover it.

There haven't been any pay reviews prior to Bain's current effort since the 1970s, and the government has always coughed up the cash to meet the pay formula the FBU went on strike for last time.

Oh look. The anti-Christ himself speaks - or Andy Gilchrist, as everybody except Orangefish and Mycroft (and probably Two Jags) refer to him;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,840457,00.html

Your point about assumptions and the RFU is a really cheap one, btw Mycroft. You neer mentioned the RFU in your original post, so it certainly wasn't clear that that was who you were referring to. Otherwise i certainly would have said 'Acceptability to the RFU is irrelavent. They are a seoperate union with a seperate membership and a seperate mandate.'

The Retained Fire Fighters Union is irrelevant in this discussion as they have a no strike agreement with the employers, they will however merrily accept the settlement reached by the FBU!

Regarding training - basic training is 16 weeks, but this is followed by a further 4.5 years of on the job training before you are deemed to be a fully qualified fire fighter!!

As for the crap being spouted about about the poor bloody squadies and how little they get paid, it is true their basic is less, but they don't have to make pension contributions, if they live on base/station then their living expenses are tiny and they get reduced coouncil charges as well (my sson is in the RAF so I know) by the time you take all this into account they are probably better off in terms of take home pay than the fire fighters!!

Blues Shark, of course it wasn't clear, but it never occurred to you to say that in the first place, you just ran with your prejudices instead.

In any case, why should the RFU be irrelevant? Are they not firefighters too? The FBU has made considerable efforts to solicit the RFU's support because their bargaining position would be stronger if all firefighters agreed with them, so it's churlish to pretend the RFU doesn't matter just because they disagree with you.

I didn't say they were irrelevant (or only inasmucdh as that which they about this pay deal). I said they had a different mandate.

I find that clarity in an argument helps *all* parties avoid making a horses A**e of themselves. Funny of me, I know, but expecting ones interlocutors to be clairvoyant is sa cheap trick, sorry and all that.

Mycroft they are irrelevant because they have refused all overtures to date from the FBU to take action etc. principally because they have a NO STRIKE agreement in place and do not wish to break it - they will however be bound to whatever pay rise etc the FBU achieve.

From a collective bargaining perspective they are about as much use as a chocolate tea pot!

The sooner the government
a) assures the employers there are funds for any settlement
b) puts the big sticks away and lets the employers and union get on with negotiating a settlement
c) stops trying to use this as a PR exercise in how they are as, in not more, Tory than the Tories
the better we will all be.

In my view and that of the FBU members I have spoken to they would settle at an increase of £3,500 taking their basic start salary to £24,500 (this funnily enough is pretty close to the 16% that Gilchrist maintains the employers had indicated may be available before the governemnt stuck thier big feet in).

I'd hate to contradict you ross but the FBU ave just rejected a deal that would take pay to £25 000 and thats why they're on stike (i do appreciate this offer was over two years).

ali1 based on the start salary of £21000 the deal currently on offer and rejected would have increased salaries next year to £21840 rising to £22470 if the full increase materialises.

For fully qualified firefighters the salaries would be £23,000 now £23920 next year and £24610 the year after.

What they would be prepared to settle on is £24-£25000 as a start salary for next year! with fully qualified fire fighters getting £26-27000 for next year!

Of course the working practices need to be reviewed and modernised but this should be dealt with after the pay settlement!

The employers i.e. Local Government, would probably be very happy to fund a 100% pay rise for the firefighters as long as the Government footed the bill. As they will not produce extra money the employers hands are inevetably tied hence their need for reform and savings to fund a settlement. If the Government say no, then it means no.

Really "when the government says no, then it means no" is this the same government that has changed its tune a number of times!

Well my argument is that that is a perfectly reasonable rate of pay to start as an unqualified fire fighter on 21K is bloody good (I will start onless after 7 years at uni qualified to phd level). 23K isn't great for a fully qualified fireighter.

As i propsed earlier the government shoul propose a scheme where those with say 10+ years get 30-32K, fully qualified (4years) say 23-25K and in all honestly trainees should get less than 21K! However i think that would be far to sensible for either side.

Blues Shark, if lack of clarity is your benchmark then the phrase "or only inasmucdh as that which they about this pay deal" leads me to wonder just how big a horse are you part of. What were you trying to say?

Anyway, you're right, it was a cheap trick, although you've got the clairvoyance back to front: I knew you could be relied on to jump to a convenient conclusion where others might pause for thought. Next time I hope you see it coming.


Ross, you may not like it, but the fact is that the RFU represents firefighters paid on the same scale as the FBU, and they don't want to strike. What is it about the use of free will that troubles you so?

I thought someone had pointed out their no strike clause- surely that means that if they joined the strike they would get sacked.

That's merely what's been erroneously assumed. The RFU has a no strike clause in its constitution, not in its members' contracts of employment. If the union feels like changing its mind there's nothing the employers can do about it.