On 1 Nov 2010 at 1:33pm Newmania wrote:
Private Sector 15% unionised ,Public Sector 66%. Public Sector average earning (2009) £539 , private sector £465 and even then the Public Sector take was rising at 3.15% to a private sector`s 1%.
Union members are more likely to be owner occupiers and , as we know cannot be fired. Nice life .
Firemen are on £33,000 basic up to £50,000 with the bits and overtime , and we know how that works . They work two nine hour day shifts and t6wo 15 hour night shifts followed by four days off .
1780 of them hold second jobs and above half commute. They get a London weighting of £5021, depite this and can retire at 50 on full penions with thirty years service .
Last year out of a work force of 5600 in London only 15 quit and there were 26 applicants for each post. Fancy
The risks they run are statistically far lower than those taken by any construction worker and not remotely comparable wit the ordinary soldier who gets sod all.
Worse than all this is the fact they are making fires worse . This year Tony Mc Guirk (Chief Fire Officer Merseyside) , said " We`ve got some bone idle people in the public sector ". The TUC went nuts but the fact is this man started with 2140 fires and 15 deaths in his area and last year had 1300 and 7 respectively
In the meantime they had reduced the numbers from 1400 to 850.
We have to do more with less , everyone else has to, but so long as the Unions stand in the way we are all going to be ripped off and badly served .
Who is going to have the guts to take on the big vested interests , Unite , GMB. They have just bought their puppet Red Ed but thus far Posh Dave is bravely running away.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 3:15pm teaboy wrote:
So, people who are unionised at work have a better deal. Funny, that. Instead of complaining that others have it better than you why not join a union and have them fight for the best deal for you too? Who knows, you might get better wages, conditions and job security.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 3:18pm Clifford wrote:
Quite right Teaboy. And that's why the media do their best to vilify the unions - the class war is still going strong. They like the workers weak and disorganised.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 3:26pm Down and Out wrote:
Way back when Down and Out was a snot-nosed infant, Old Ma D&O was a school dinner lady and, generally speaking, a classic small-c-conservative rural anti-leftie Tory. At some point there was notice that redundancies would be made amongst the dinner staff - 2 of 8 or so - and the Head came round and said 'OK, I'll keep you and you and the rest can draw lots'. At which point, outraged old Tory Ma and the rest of the Ladies joined a union (whatever Unison was in the seventies, I think), and the union rep immediately jumped in and made sure that the school sorted out a sensible redundancy procedure.
Terrible thing, unions. Unless you need one.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 3:26pm Newmania wrote:
Given that the Union members more often graduates home owners and better paid I `m not entirely sure which side they are on in the 'class war'.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 3:30pm teaboy wrote:
I'd also like to add that I do not support the FBU strikes. Basically they're resisting a change from 15hr night shifts and 9hr days to 12hr shifts (night or day). As an emergency service they have a bloody good deal compared with the LAS and the Met. They're on jobs 9% of the time they're 'at work' - the rest of the time they're on station with gym, and they get paid sleep time on nights. The LAS and Met are on the road all the time (except for a 30 minute break), even through the night.
Obviously forced changes of contracts should not be allowed, but it's not as if it's a change for the worse!
On 1 Nov 2010 at 3:47pm Newmania wrote:
From my window I can see a helicopter being used to being the traffic to a standstill in Croydon seems to be a picket of some sort ? That will hold the whole place up for hours
My point with the FBU is not just their absurd parasitical deal but the fact that they oppose efficiency.
..and we put up with the NUT ?
On 1 Nov 2010 at 4:00pm Clifford wrote:
Newmania wrote: 'Given that the Union members more often graduates home owners and better paid I `m not entirely sure which side they are on in the 'class war'.'
I'm sure all it'll come as a surprise to most Unite and Unison members to hear they are graduates rolling in dosh. 'Class war' is the struggle wages for and against those who can only live by selling their labour.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 4:07pm jrsussex wrote:
I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. It is a fact that most of their working time is spent in the station. Yes the job has dangers, but so have many others that do not allow the employee time to operate another business. Approximately 5/6 years ago a London Fire & Rescue employee sold a small building company, he had started and built up during his career as a fireman, for £37,500. On the question of them commuting into London one of them used to live in Spain, almost impossible to believe, but true. Worked his shifts to give himself maximum time in Spain. Their shift patterns must be altered, but they will fight to stop that ever happening.
On top of that they are among the most boring of people socially, their topic of conversation much of the time is confined to how many "shouts" they have had that day or week. Their wives eyes usually glaze over, at which point they often move away from their menfolk and talk among themselves.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 4:47pm teaboy wrote:
I have no issue with people commuting to work in London, be it from Lewes, Leicester or Spain. People work their lives around their jobs, or jobs around their lives depending on their perspective and priorities.
The LFB really haven't thought long-term enough about this issue. Employ new staff on new shift patterns and allow 'natural wastage' to take it's course. Simple.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 5:11pm Clifford wrote:
I must admit I'm interested in the danger of various jobs. A study a few years found that the top ten most dangerous were as follows. (interestingly, neither the police nor the fire brigade were anywhere in the list).
2. Merchant seafarers
3. Aircraft flight deck officers
4. Railway lengthmen
6. Roofers and glaziers
7. Forestry workers
8. Quarry and other mine workers
9. Dockers and stevedores
10. Lorry drivers
On 1 Nov 2010 at 5:26pm Down and Out wrote:
Wonder how they define 'danger'? The stats for incidence of cancer amongst painters and decorators are shocking for example, but since they don't die 'on the job' they probably don't count.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 7:49pm Benji wrote:
Regardless of "Dangerous" Clifford, And I am not having a dig here because I agree with this but disagree with you posting that list. No one in that list is employed to save the lives of others and do things that you probably couldn't even stomach. Those listed above are putting themselves in the position of risk and usually will only die when doing something wrongly or unneccessary.
Fireman and Police on the other hand can sometimes be at risk without even knowing, take the explosions at Halland for example. Look at the numbers of service men and woman being stabbed or injured whilst trying to help someone.
It is not a dig at you Clifford but the services are willing to do a job that you and I are not willing to do. And their main priority is the publics safety and through that they get hurt ? Fair or Not Fair?
And finally to comment on what teaboy mentioned, Firefighters are still working their shift regardless of what percentage they are actually on the job as you so put it, they are training, cleaning, going to do speeches and fund raising e.t.c. Police can sit in lay bys in their nice "souped" up bmw or merc and be sitting for hours on end waiting for a speeding car or something, surely this is the same. Yes mainly the Police and Ambulance service will spend alot of time driving around on Motorways, Dual or A roads, but this is to increase their emergency response time. Where as it wouldn't exactly be suitable for a fire engine weighing around 13 tonnes with 1800 Litres of water (or in more appropriate terms 3167.5 Pints) to be driving around all day slowing down traffic and possibly be in bad place when an emergency comes in. Hence why there is so many Fire Stations to reduce emergency response.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 8:54pm Newmania wrote:
The relative danger of jobs is, of course ,well known to the Insurance Industry and the list more or less equates the the standard rates applicable to the occupations in question.
Personally I would find fire fighting quite exciting but Police work on the street quite difficult and stressful.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 9:38pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I find firemen more exciting than police officers, who have a tendency to dangerously high levels of pomposity and prejudice imo. I've known lots of firemen, and only one who was not a all-round good chap and a laugh to boot.
Fire fighting is more boring than a wet Sunday. A previous county fire officer told me that the hardest part of his job was motivating people who spent most of their working hours waiting for something to happen. At least Mr Plod can go and persecute motorists if he hasn't got anything better to do.
Firemen also have to be very fit. The ones who distracted me all the way through a meeting by playing volleyball wearing shorts and no tops were very fit indeed.
On 1 Nov 2010 at 10:27pm brixtonbelle wrote:
Sorry - so now it's not okay for anyone working in public service to earn a decent wage for 48 hours work a week ? As a shift worker I can tell you that 2 9 hour days followed by 2 16 hour nights is a complete nightmare for your system. Permanent jetlag. Night shift workers suffer earlier deaths than normal 8 hr day workers and are susceptible to greater rates of cancer and heart disease. So there's additional risk to enterong burning buildings and trying to save people's lives. Worth every penny I say. I n fact they deserve more. Private sector workers need to join their unions to get a better deal. Or are we all meant to be poverty struck together to make it fair (apart from bankers, mp's and toffs, of course....oooh gideon's mates )
On 1 Nov 2010 at 11:15pm Clifford wrote:
You know, of course, Benji that the police kill far more people than police are killed in the course of their duty. On balance we are more in danger from them than they are from us. Google something like 'people killed by police in uk' or something similar. You may be surprised. The police also have the advantage, as we've seen, that they can kill with impunity.
On 2 Nov 2010 at 8:30am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
That's an interesting statistic, Clifford.
A friend of mine observed last night that when firefighters are killed it's usually because they're being incredibly brave and trying to save lives, but when police officers die in the course of duty it's generally because they've p!ssed someone off.
On 2 Nov 2010 at 9:58am teaboy wrote:
This strike is NOT about money. It is NOT about safety. It is ONLY about moving 3 hours of the working day from being classed as 'night' to being classed as 'day'.
On 2 Nov 2010 at 5:35pm brixtonbelle wrote:
and no doubt they will lose their night rate for those 3 hours accordingly ?...I'm aboslutety convinced this a money saving exercise. Having been involved in unions and negotiating for 20 odd years, there is rarely any other reason for these sorts of changes.
and i think that the management propose to impose it may have something to do with how pissed off firefighters are....
On 2 Nov 2010 at 8:33pm Bone Idle wrote:
Typical union Spannish practice. More money for doing FA. Keep it up lads. We all love seeing our taxes going to pay you to play volleyball.