BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Do you support the UK firefighters' strike?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Fist Fun
07:17 / 25.10.02
The Fire Brigades Union is all set for 36 days of strike action for a 40% payrise for firefighters.

I was suprised to find out that they only earn 21,500. That seems absurdly low for such vital and dangerous work. Of course, playing fantasy finance it is easy to dish out payrises but what effect would this have on the overall economy, the funding of public services/local government, inflation, etc? Is it ethical that a vital service should go on strike potentially endangering lives?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
07:28 / 25.10.02
It's probably unethical to pay them only £21,500. After that, everyone's on the crappy side of the line. Firemen, nurses, coastguards, lifeboatmen, junior doctors... All underpaid. They owe it to us not to strike, we owe it to them to make sure they don't have to. And to make sure that they're paid at least as much as Tube Train drivers...
 
 
Shortfatdyke
08:10 / 25.10.02
It's looking possible that the strike will not go ahead. I certainly hope it doesn't, but as long as it's for the right reasons - a decent pay deal for the firefighters.

Thing is, 40% is a huge amount to ask for, so it can be made to look like they're being greedy, but of course public sector pay was held back for so many years that some catching up has to be done. I have no sympathy with the Govt's scare tactics - telling drivers to be extra careful, because there'll be no one to cut them out of their cars if they crash. All this stuff is doing is making people realise how important the job is. Of course they should get the pay rise. The RMT are pissing me off a bit, as I know damn well that should the strike happen, they'll go out too and dress it up as a health and safety issue. They should be more honest.

But what with this and the Underground drivers' strike, I have noticed a fairly worrying trend for the anti's to state that their pay is pretty bad, so the tube drivers/firefighters should be grateful and get on with it. This is a terrible angle to see it from, almost Thatcherist. A lot of us should be better paid, it shouldn't be down to 'my life is shit, so yours should be, too'.

The other thing that occurred to me for a short time was that the current high profile strikes are doing a Labour government - their own people - no good at all. But that's unrealistic when you think of what the Government is really like. And the Tories are in no position to gain much from it.

So, more talks today between the FBU and John Prescott. They seem to be serious, the inevitable posturing didn't last too long.

But expect more industrial unrest - being a pensions nerd I know how fucked a lot of people are going to be in retirement. A lot of workplace schemes are closing down, and this is going to get higher on the agenda.
 
 
Fist Fun
08:57 / 25.10.02
A lot of us should be better paid

Which is the key point. How should pay level be decided? By the importance of your role or by return on investment. In a free market society it is the latter that determines wages. Is that fair and what can we do about it if it is not?

In the UK the electorate have consistantly voted for free market parties implying an acceptance of this wage regime. How can we reconcile this obvious unfairness with its corresponding democratic acceptance?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:05 / 25.10.02
40%? Hmmm. Sounds like MPs and CEOs to me. None of whom, it has to be said, would run into a burning building to rescue you.

I read a good piece the other night (can't remember where) making the analogy with insurance- Firefighters only work half the time, and most of us will never need them anyway.

But if/when we do... we'll be fucking grateful. Yup, it's insurance against losing all your stuff, your house and your life. And the premium, as far as the taxpayer is concerned, is very low.

Fuck yeah, I support 'em. I agree with Nick and sfd- I hope they don't go on strike, but I hope they don't BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO.

And as regards "fantasy finances"... hmmm, we can afford a war, but not to protect our civilians at home? Fuck that shit. I know which I'd rather my taxes went towards.

(And in case you're wondering, my only experience with firemen was very negative. So I'm not biased here.)
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
16:48 / 25.10.02
Simply put, I cannot condone a course of action that will seriously elevate the risk of people dying.

I understand the arguments and the reasons but I still cannot agree to it.
 
 
Ellis says:
18:08 / 25.10.02
Potus- so are you for or against the strikes then?

If demands are not met, firefighters may quit to get a job which pays more, and hearing of the low wages, won't encourage others to become firemen.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:25 / 26.10.02
I'm against them.

Sure the firefighters may quit but with the average applicant to vacancy ratio at 30:1 I don't think that there will be too much trouble filling the empty boots. What does concern me about this is the shift from a comprehensive force of long-term officers to a relatively high turnover rate leaving the entire service with a lower mean experience level.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:45 / 26.10.02
As an addendum I'm against strike action in general.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:50 / 26.10.02
Why is that?

To me (and sfd will know a great deal more about this than me, I suspect) strike action is about the only way workers can actually demonstrate their disaffection with their employers (and disaffection can sometimes be over serious issues such as safety in the workplace, respectable standards of pay, and so on). Unions can take issues to employers, but without the threat of disrupting the actual production of the company/employer (and hence their finances) any employer can basically tell them to stuff it...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:36 / 27.10.02
Yeah, the strike is one of the few forms of redress the worker actually has... to exercise power simply by reminding the employer that it is the worker who is the more important part of the equation seems to be only just.

Potus- this strike (which looks to have been averted anyway) aside, what's your problem with strike action that isn't "life-threatening"?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
05:22 / 27.10.02
Workers must have the right to withdraw their labour.

Kit-Cat and Stoatie have summed it up, really. In an ideal world, employers would negotiate properly with unions/workers and treat them decently, but that often doesn't happen. Some strikes - like the recent ones on the London Underground - can be an absolute pain in the arse, but workers must have that option. As I say, doesn't beat talking constructively; the suspension of the first firefighter's strikes is very good news for all of us.

Actually, in an ideal world, we wouldn't be doing half the work we are now and fighting for a few more crumbs from the rich man's table, but in the society we have, things could and should be a lot better. People in this country work, I think, the longest hours in Europe. People are knackered for very little 'reward'. Take away the right to strike and we've really had it.

Or are you arguing, Potus, that if none of us could strike we'd get so incredibly pissed off that the great revolution would finally be on the horizon?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
09:24 / 27.10.02
Yeah, Ok, so I should have explained further.

The right to withdraw work should be an absolute right of a work with exceptions like threat-to-life.

However, from strict observational experience, I've rarely seen a strike that genuinely IMO progressed matters.

Unions piss me off no end to begin with. This is foremost because they basically take your money to do something that would be cheaper to do yourself. They also operate on political levels and when they're representing you and your interests seems like dubious practice as nobody actually elects a union for a workplace on a regular basis.

That's just the foundation for my dislike of strikes though. As the majority of stikes are organised by unions they become something more distasteful. I've had people try to get me to support strike action by spouting the propoganda of the union which is not always accurate and largely biased. In fact I'm tempted to go so far as to say entirely biased. There are always at least two sides to the story but in a strike scenario when have you ever heard of a union explaining even a part of the oppositions point of view? Commonly the answer will propbably be never. I've certainly never heard of it.

To really top matters off is the way unions and their representatives act during strikes. They will actively encourage picketers to pressure non-picketers to join them and to do so at some fairly unpleasant levels. Then there is the treatment of people not striking by choice. If a person decides of their own volition to not strike based on the issues at stake then that decision should be respected. Such activities as hurling abuse, pressure to change, pressure on family members, physical activities and any other tactics should not happen. Yet somehow they do and according to sources often with the nod of the union. Three of the strikes in Ontario this year are classic examples of this, especially the jail workers strike when one person deciding to express his position by crossing the picket-line was struck repeatedly with a placard and required hospital treatment.

Hope this clarifies my position a little further.

On a personal note; A couple of weeks ago I was working for a contractor to Westminster Council. After hearing a coworkers lament of the time the union was taking to resolve a pay issue the conversation lead to me explaining that there was nothing the union did for her that she could not do for herself and at less cost. One of the union reps overheard me say this and pretty much demanded that I be fired there and then for slandering the union. I was called into the managers office to explain my actions and was basically told that while I was not in the wrong I should not talk about unions in the workplace.

Powertrip and censorship, what's so great about that?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:02 / 27.10.02
Potus: "Unions piss me off no end to begin with. This is foremost because they basically take your money to do something that would be cheaper to do yourself."

Well yes, it would be cheaper to just tell your boss he was a wanker/wasn't paying you enough/was operating business practices you thought were wrong...

...but don't be surprised if he/she fires you, or comes up with a good reason not to keep you on next time there's a round of redundancies. What the union does is provide a collective voice... of course, that's not always gonna protect you from victimisation (if only a couple of you are in the union, say), but you'd have a better case for unfair dismissal if you were speaking as part of a group of people... the union grants "anonymity" to a degree... unless it's made illegal to be a member of one (god forbid) then anyone speaking for the union is speaking for some, or all, of its members. Not (necessarily) for themselves. Therefore whoever is (as union rep or whatever) raising a point/making a demand, can't usually be fired for "insubordination".

And strike action is the most powerful weapon a union has.

And as far as I'm concerned, a worker (yes, even- I'd go so far as to say ESPECIALLY a public service worker) has a right to protection.

Ain't budging on this one. I'm VERY glad the strike probably won't happen, but Mr Tony better start chucking some serious cash their way.

And 40%- fair though I think it would be- was probably aiming high. Leaving haggle-room. Always one of the key strands of any piece of negotiation.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:13 / 27.10.02
Oh, and as far as endangering life goes, (warning- comment coming up that is probably glib) we are lucky to have a fire service. And medical care. And dentistry. And stuff like that.

Christ, we've come to depend on them. They ARE necessary services to all intents and purposes, as far as the majoprity of us are concerned. But it's not an inalienable human right to expect someone to risk their life to rescue you when your house burns down, or make you better when you're sick, or sort your teeth out.

If (as seems to have been mooted) public service workers are banned the right to strike, then that immediately puts them on a lesser footing than most other professions. Most of which pay better. Who would, by choice, go into a profession where they KNEW they'd get paid less and treated worse?

Either idiots, or people who actually want to do the job for itself. Want to rescue people, heal people, drive them to work on time, whatever. Who probably deserve to be rewarded.

And yeah, your WMinster Council story does sound like it sucks. Just because I like the idea of unions and believe them to be necessary doesn't mean I won't accept they can act like pricks sometimes. But that's no reason for them, as a whole, to "piss (you) off to begin with".
 
 
Milky Joe
12:01 / 27.10.02
The unions were so bad and found politics and left wing political gains more important than workers rights in the 70's they find it hard to get the backing of the public at large in 2002. People are very suspicious of them and there motives.

Arthur Scargill did more harm than good during the miners strike when he was very open about striking and civil unrest being part of a class struggle and a way to create a socialist (communist?) state. What people wanted from there unions was help in getting better rights and better wages. Not many wanted general strikes with the aim of bringing the nation to its knees. The result of this was an acceptance of the power of unions being eroded. When the unions got there act togther and wanted to work with employers to make things better for workers ( which is what people want from there union) the unions had little power left to do any good. This has resulted in the 'middle of the road' union ideas (most of which were excellent) of the 90's failing and the return of militant union leaders with agendas people are wary about.

Workers do need the right to strike. We just need to be carefull we don't back to a situation where striking is used for reasons other than improving the industrial rights and lives of the workers.
 
 
glassonion
14:30 / 27.10.02
Cabinet ministers, another group of public sector workers, voted for a forty percent pay rise for themselves not a month ago. and their job is not very dangerous. but a firefighter's job is not as dangerous as a deep-sea fisherman's or building construction worker. weird shifts mean firefolk spend a lot of time at work asleep or playing pool, and have time to take on second jobs. there should be equivalent payrises for people who have to wipe old men's arseholes too i think. but shit you've got to pay people enough to live near where they work and if the price of living in southern metropolitan areas has rocketed under your governance and you can't balance it all out and people don't go to work cos they're paid shit...well then gordon it sounds like you're fucking up the job you've been charged with. if this leads to tube strikes because people don't want to fry in tubes miles underground then its just tough shit for the boys who never even wear red ties any more. i'll side with anyone prescott calls a criminal, especially when they aren't and he's just being a stupid arrogant fat bastard.

has anyone seen the fedex advert where there's like this huge samoan guy who runs around picking up old ladies from their flats and dropping them at hospital because there's no community ambulance service anymore? well fedex take him out of that shithole where he's clearly wasting his time, put him in a nice shirt n van and put the likes of him to work getting packages to your business before nine am. i fucking hate that advert i do.
 
 
Baz Auckland
14:32 / 27.10.02
Potus: People do elect their unions. If the workers don't think the union is working, they can pull out. Union de-certification can be easy to accomplish, especially in Ontario.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:20 / 28.10.02
Yeah but union de-certification rarely happens because of politics, propoganda and complacency.

I guess unions probably do make it easier but on balance I'll check my own head thanks. I'm more comfortable playing it my own way.

I know we are lucky to have ERS at the level that we do but given they do form a cohesive element of our social systems then I claim that my threat to life stance stands.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:30 / 28.10.02
But if you withdraw the right to strike from critical services you basically get in to a situation where you never have to give them a pay rise because they can't do anything about it, so they leave the job, eventually people won't be going for it because the pay is low (look at teachers) and then you either don't have a firman service or it's the army doing it fulltime.
 
 
Fist Fun
15:08 / 28.10.02
What about wage inflation?

If firefighters get 30,000 then why not teachers, nurses, the police....civil servants. It is easy, and seems very fair, to dish out pay increases...but what if the responsibility for the prosperity of a people is influenced by your decisions. It isn't quite so easy then.

Didn't Mitterand come to power in France promising a Keynesian economics which proved irresistible to voters? He then proceeded to trash the economy and was forced back to austerity management.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:23 / 29.10.02
Just because you remove the right to strike, doesn't mean that you never have to pay people more money.

That is frankly a ridiculous statement with less foundation than most of the ones that I make. Not every wage increase is directly linked to strike action, if it were then the entire economics of the world would collapse. Firstly there is contracted increase which is usually agreed upon (by which I mean signed and sealed) at the time of hiring. If you accept a position without a negotiated wage increase over a projected timeframe then really you need to start rethink your entire gameplan. This is the 21st century after all. Secondly there is the opportunity to present your case to the employers to request inflation linked wage increases as they occur. Finally, and I may be rusty here on the employment law, there is presedent to take a claim to court that is binding on the employer. This is certainly something that was done by civic employees in Seattle IIRC and this was after the union negotiations were stalemated by politics.
 
 
Fist Fun
05:45 / 31.10.02
So nobody has any opinions on wage inflation? This is the real key to this whole problem. Any economists out tonight? I'd don't know too much myself but I would like to get some more info...
 
 
Fist of Fun
06:37 / 31.10.02
I remember from politics courses (about 9 years ago, admittedly) that in several countries in Europe key public sector workers do not have the right to strike but in compensation get certain guaranteed salaries by comparison to national wage averages. I think this is a great idea for such workers as nurses and firemen. Of course, this would probably be far too expensive for the UK government to implement.

As for this strike:
(i) There is no way on earth that the government can afford to give the firefighters a 40% pay rise or even anything close to it. It's not that they can't afford the firefighters' pay rise - it's that they can't afford the inevitable claims for pay rises in other parts of the public sector.
(ii) Having put in the bid at 40% I believe the firefighters' union leadership have backed themselves into something of a corner. If they get less than 20% they look weak to their members.
(iii) Although the underlying reason for the pay dispute is undoubtedly that the firefighters have dropped behind in pay in the past 15 years (even by comparison to other public sector workers, incidentally) the immediate reason is the ongoing independent review process. This is due to report in December / January. In the usual course of public sector pay bargaining this would be where it all starts, which leaves one to ask "Why the strike now, before the report of the independent review?" The answer appears to be that the firefighters are deeply worried that the report will advise the abolition of national pay and conditions.

So, I agree with the pay dispute and agree that they should be paid more. I even agree that, ultimately, even firefighters need the right to strike unless they are protected by other rights which, as they don't have them in the UK, means they should be allowed to strike. However, in this case I do have my suspicions that the reasons for this strike are not entirely as they are being presented by the union. Does this mean they shouldn't strike anyway? Hmmmm, probably not, just not yet - wait until the independent review comes back and see what that says.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
11:08 / 31.10.02
The official FBU line on why they're not waiting for the review is that one of the people on it has already stated that their pay claim is 'ridiculous'. They are not going to get 40%, that's obvious, but I thought the union had indicated that they were prepared to accept a reasonable compromise. Fist of Fun - you're right in that, say, 15% would be a good increase but would still look bad for the FBU. So a lot of the negotiations are going to be around saving face as much as anything else.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
09:56 / 13.11.02
Lovely line in The Sun this morning - the firefighters' union has, apparently, left us all 'at the mercy of al Qaeda' (I've spelt that wrongly, I'm sure, but I'm in a hurry). Bin Laden no doubt has been chatting to Andy Gilchrist to co-ordinate action.

As far as I can tell, the firefighters were about to be offered 16% in one go but the Govt stepped in and stopped it. Is there any wonder that the strike is going ahead?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:28 / 13.11.02
If I was a firefighter I'd strike because of the conditions they're expecting along with an 11% increase over three years. You know because obviously that's going to happen. The proposals that the government has put forward could not be instituted in three years and anyone with half a brain can see that. No conditions met, no pay rise, poor pay rise anyway - strike.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:54 / 13.11.02
just like to say I'm looking forward to getting my pay packet at the end of this week, the pay increase we got after UNISON doing the National Strike should come in at last.
 
 
tom-karika nukes it from orbit
19:16 / 13.11.02
Does anyone know what these 'Changes in working practices' which both the FBU and the Govt. talk about are?

Do the firefighters just have to use new types of equipment, work different hours, train in more first aid or what?
If it really is a change for the worse, wouldn't the number of job applicants go down? Has it?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:19 / 13.11.02
This article gives some details of what was in the govt report. I suspect the problems lie in the fact that the proposals are pretty far-reaching, and this kind of thing is always liable to set off alarm bells:

Rigid national wage structures would be replaced by a more flexible arrangement so authorities could pay more or less and a national formula to trigger automatic annual awards would be downgraded.

Funny the things it affects though - I'd expected the science labs to have to turn things off overnight, but all the main libraries shut at seven (rather than ten) for the next two weeks - not sure why there's an increased risk of the books going up in flames; I suppose it must be that night-time priority would go to actual people...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
06:10 / 14.11.02
Apparently three people died in fires last night. The Daily Mail's gonna have a field day. Never mind the fact that even the news this morning pointed out that no-one knows whether they'd have survived even without the strike, and that in at least one of the cases the fire brigade crossed their own picket line and turned up anyway.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:45 / 14.11.02
Whatever radio station is on in this place at the moment just had some news where the phrase "preventable fatalities" was used.
 
 
Fist Fun
12:23 / 14.11.02
Some other opinions

"These firemen (firefighters for the PC) think the are worth 30 grand for sitting on their arses playing cards and eating breville sandwiches ?

What they fail to remember is that you need NO qualifications, professional or educational, and anyone could be trained up in eight weeks and do as professional job as someone with 30 years experince !

Get real and get back to work !"

"if you want to go for the sympathy vote and play on the risks involved, I'll wager that more suited office types died last year from heart attacks related to stress and unavoidably unhealthy lifestyles than firemen who after all get paid to go to the gym and relax between short bursts of effort."

"At the end of the day it has to be sensible and I'll never be convinced that the base salary for a fireman or any other manual job should equate to that of a graduate doctor, software engineer etc."

"If the firemen don't like it. Get another job.

T'is a marketplace like any other job.

With 40 applicants for every job in the fire service, I think the firefighters have very little leverage. "

"People who become firemen know the dangers beforehand so they shouldn't use that as an argument for a pay rise."

"More teachers have died in the last 10 years doing their jobs than Firemen.

Nurses get paid far less for saving more lives whilst being assaulted on regular basis (A&E) and work very long hours.

Police chase down thugs and get into fights every friday and saturday night whilst dealing with scum all day long, cannot take second jobs to supplement their income, cannot be in debt (!). Oh, and everyone hates them.

Firemen get 32 days holiday a year, paid more than all the above after six weeks training - with no qualifications, can sleep through their nights, most people are dead well before they arrive, can take second jobs, retire at 50 on 3/4ths salary."

Ok, all pretty heinous, but interesting seeing as we are all pretty much in agreement here and no ones wants to play devils advocate. Anyone think there is a grain of truth in any of these quotes?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:17 / 14.11.02
Well, this bit's certainly true:

Police... [deal] with scum all day long

But on the bright side, cops also deal with people who aren't cops a lot of the time. Aha.
 
 
Raistlin
20:37 / 14.11.02
Just to expand on the comparison with police. The police are not allowed to strike. This is presumably because of the danger to the public that would ensue. Why then is the fire brigade allowed to strike? I don't know the exact circumstances regarding police pay but could this not be adapted and applied to the fire brigade.
40% does seem like an unreasonable demand especially when the police, nurses and armed forces could all reasonably claim to deserve the same pay raise.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply